Bush's Security Paramount --- Jews Not Allowed to Be Secure by Bush & Condi -- Thousands of Arabs under House Arrest to Protect Bush

UPDATED 1-10-2008 & 1-11-2008 & 1-12-2008 & 1-15-2008

Double standards and hypocrisy are long-standing commodities in international politics, even the US State Department engages in it. But hypocrisy reaches new heights in the falsely named Israel-Arab "peace process." Condoleeza Rice, US secretary of state, demands that Israel implement an anti-Jewish, racist policy of preventing Jews from building homes in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, conquered and usurped by Arabs, where Arabs/Muslims imposed racist-like, apartheid-like subjugation on Jews [= dhimma]. Arabs too join in this effort today, demanding that the USA, supposedly dedicated to human equality, forcefully impose racist restrictions on Jews. The irony of Rice's position --as a Black woman-- is obvious. However, she is not stating a personal position but rather that of the State Dept which has always been anti-Israel. Indeed, she seems to have taken on robotic qualities since becoming secretary of state.

Another act of US hypocrisy is that thousands of Arabs in Ramallah have been put under house arrest as a precautionary measure for the sake of Bush's security while he is in that town. Most of these people have done nothing specific against Bush nor have most of them threatened him. But they are under house arrest all the same. Contrast the harsh precautions taken for Bush's security with the Arab-American hostility to Israeli precautionary measures to protect the lives of Jews threatened by Arab terrorists coming from Ramallah and other places in Judea-Samaria. Rice [riso amaro] and other US government officials and press mouthpieces have often complained about Israeli checkposts, body inspections, closed roads, etc. in Judea-Samaria in order to intercept terrorists. But when it comes to Bush's security, everything goes, as we shall see below. Before we get to that, bear in mind that Jews traveling in those areas are also subject to security checks, checkposts, barriers, etc. Even going into a shopping mall in Jerusalem or on a visit to the Western Wall of the ancient Jewish Temple requires a partial body check, passing through metal detectors, body checks, baggage and package checks, etc.

Now, what was done for Bush in Ramallah? I consider it especially important to bring this news to your attention since it apparently is not being reported in the American MSM, and seems NOT to be available on the Yedi`ot Ahronot site [ynet] in English, although I read it in Yedi`ot's Hebrew daily print edition. Roni Shaked, a veteran Yedi`ot journalist reports on Ramallah (1-10-2008; p 5):

Towards Bush's arrival in Ramallah, the Muqata`ah [government compound] in Ramallah has turned into a fortified target under American command. The streets around it for a radius of about two kilometers have been closed to traffic by vehicles and pedestrians. The residents living in the closed area have received the order not to leave their homes starting from last night until the afternoon today. They have been forbiddent to go up on the roofs or even to stand near the windows in their private homes. Owners of businesses have been requested to close their stores and all workers in the Palestinian government ministries located in the area have been requested not to come to work today.

Shaked also relays a statement by `Adnan Damiri, PA police spokesman, that 4,000 policemen and security men will also guard Bush's visit. Since many PA police are part-time terrorists, having murdered at least three Israelis since Annapolis, one wonders if they will be armed. Nevertheless, there was another report that additional, specifically American-controlled security measures have been taken in Ramallah. According to this report --which came out Wednesday afternoon but which I cannot now find in English on the Net, so far-- the residents of upper floors of buildings near the Muqata`ah were told to evacuate their apartments. Their places were supposed to be taken by American sharpshooters who were also supposed to be stationed on the roofs. This fills out, elaborates on and explains the statement by Shaked above that the security precautions around the Muqata`ah are "under American command." Eitan Livneh gave a little info in this vein in the paper Yisrael HaYom [1-8-2008; Tuesday; p 6]:

Palestinian security sources spoke yesterday [1-7-2008] about "a sort of curfew" that might be imposed on the area of the Muqata`ah. Together with American security men, the Palestinian Authority is set up for a gigantic protective operation, in which about 4,000 Palestinian security men will take part.
In recent days, heavy [construction] vehicles have dug up in the Muqata`ah compound in order to make sure that there are no [buried] bombs or unexploded rockets/mortars/shells there. The Americans too are set up for the visit, their helicopters have already been flying in the skies over the [West] Bank since yesterday and have landed in Ramallah.

Seems everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. And Bush's security certainly counts for a lot more than that of the ordinary Jew in Israel or anywhere for that matter. For the record, many streets in Jerusalem have been closed to vehicular traffic, greatly inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of Israelis, although I think that the ban on pedestrians has been limited to very small areas. Let me know if I am mistaken. Remember how the fake "human rights" agencies --Amnesty, "human rights watch," B'tselem, etc.-- moan and groan over Israeli checkposts, etc? But nothing is too good for Bush. This too tells us that the "peace process" has nothing to do with peace for Jews but only peace of mind for antisemites. Those Arabs called "palestinians" cannot be trusted to receive the US president peacefully. But somehow, we are told, they are ready to live in peace with Jews.

Here too we have further proof that the "peace process" is a fake. Further, consider what all the above implies about the relationship of the "palestinian authority" to the US govt. The PA is quite ready to restrict the freedom of thousands of its own people for Bush's sake. The PA is allowing US forces to operate in its zones of authority. It is obviously following American official directives. But it seems that the US Govt cannot get the same PA, so servile when it comes to an American president's security, to control the terrorist anti-Jewish inclinations of its own "security" forces and police. Nor is there any visible effort by the US Govt to have the PA stop its TV and radio broadcasts demeaning Jews --[such as, "Jews are descended from apes and pigs"]-- and inciting violence against Jews. Likewise for the Judeophobic school curriculum in the PA schools. Only a fool could possibly think the PA wants real peace with Israel --I said PA, not even considering the Hamas, which is simply less hypocritical. So Bush's "peace efforts" are not to be praised but condemned.

UPDATED 1-10-2008: Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post report mentions the curfew: "at least half of Ramallah under curfew during Bush's visit." But the American security presence is mentioned only in a quote from a resident: "Our city is controlled by American security forces and no one is happy about this." The Post report linked to a few lines above has a few more details, such as that the PA "policemen" will bear weapons but without ammunition.
UPDATING 1-11-2008: It is confirmed that Arabs were taken out of their homes for Bush's safety: "The Muqata`ah, where the meeting between the leaders took place, was declared a sterile area, all the streets around the Muqata`ah were closed, and residents were even evacuated from their homes in several areas" [Asaf Gabor in Maqor Rishon 1-11-2008].
HaArets had a few details in its report confirming other reports, although the fact that Arab people were evacuated from their homes was left out.
UPDATING 1-12-2008: I am informed by Jews who live in the Binyamin region [in early Israelite times, the estate of the Tribe of Benjamin], close to Ramallah, that Jews in that area were forbidden to leave their villages or settlements while Bush was in and near Ramallah. For instance, the gates of Adam --east of Pisgat Ze'ev and Hizma were locked while Bush was in the area.
UPDATING 1-15-2008 Caroline Glick describes the situation in Jerusalem during Bush's visit as "virtual martial law" imposed by the Olmert regime on the Jewish people.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on falsehoods of the fake "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, etc.

False Premises of Annapolis & of the "peace process"

It is characteristic of decaying
societies and ruling groups that
they are incapable of adjusting to
the evolution of reality. They repeat
discussions and arguments and behaviors
that have failed, but which they cannot
renounce because they have been as if
hypnotized by their own beliefs.
The myth of the "peace process"
in the Middle East is one of these. ******
Le propre des sociétés et des pouvoirs
finissants est leur incapacité à s'ajuster
à l'évolution de la réalité. Ils réitèrent
des discours et des comportements qui
ont echoué mais auxquels ils ne peuvent
renoncer parce qu'ils sont comme
hypnotisés par leurs propres croyances.
Le mythe du «processus de paix» au
Moyen Orient est de ceux-là.
[Shmuel Trigano, "Le Besoin d'un nouveau
paradigme pour le Moyen Orient,"
France-Israel Information,
juillet-aout-septembre 2007, p 5]

One of the big lies of the "peace process" [and of the Annapolis Conference] is that a "peace process" necessarily ends up in a state of peace. This is idiotically viewing a "peace process" as something like a scientific or industrial process that always produces the same results. As if it were like heating water to 100 degrees celsius which --we know from experience-- will cause it to boil and evaporate as steam. Or the process may be like kindling a fuse that leads to well-packed dynamite. Which --we know from experience and reputation-- will bring about an explosion. Of course a "peace process" may very well end up in an explosion but that's not what the promoters of the process would have us believe. They speak of a "peace process" as if it were scientifically sure to result in peace. They might prefer an analogy to putting out a fire. The rage of the "palestinians" over "unfair treatment" might be likened to a fire which Israel could put out by giving them territory which would have the effect on "palestinian" or Arab rage of the chemicals in a fire extinguisher which put out fires.

Of course that may work in a natural science like physics or chemistry but not in political science. The diplomatic peacemongers disregard or pretend to be unaware of the fact that human beings in all their variety, with their virtues and vices [more of the latter than the former], are involved.

Shmuel Trigano writes that the Oslo "peace process" has "proven itself over the years to be, above all, a war process" [processus de guerre]. That seems obvious to many people, probably to the overwhelmingly majority of Israelis. But it still has to be said. And repeated over and over. Because, as Trigano points out, "'the peace process' still continues today. . . and some push the impudence or the farce" so far as to "announce to us a soon to come final --'historic'-- peace agreement."
So much for "peace processes" in general and the Oslo "peace process" in particular.

Another big lie is that there is a people called a "palestinian people." Actually, those people now fashionably called "palestinians" consider themselves merely a section of the Arab nation [see Article One of the PLO charter, among other documents]. There never was a "palestinian people" in history and indeed the Arabs did not traditionally call the country "palestine" nor did they see it as a separate, distinct country. Rather for Arabs and other Muslims it was an undefined, indistinct area of bilad ash-Sham [translated as Greater Syria or Syria]. But the "palestinian people" notion is necessary for creating a body of public opinion in the West in favor of taking territory away from Israel, territory vital for Israel's defense against the Arab states in general or against Arab and other Islamic states. Shmuel Trigano points out that:

After 15 years of illusions, two facts force themselves to be noticed:
1) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an Israel-Arab conflict, or Israel-Islamic conflict (indeed, Pakistanis and Indonesians, even Muslim Europeans who have become Islamists, are not Arabs).
2) The Palestinians don't want a Palestinian state but the disappearance of the state of Israel.

Hence, Israel is not fighting merely "palestinians" but Arabs generally and other Muslims. Thus Trigano refutes two more lies of the "peace process," that is, that Israel is fighting "palestinians" alone, that there is an "Israel-palestinian" conflict, and that the palestinian Arabs or other Arabs want a separate "palestinian state," much less a state alongside Israel living at peace with Israel.
Of course, President Bush Junior claims that that's what he wants. But if he thinks that that's what the Arabs want, then he's a fool or ignoramus or liar or all of those.

Bush also now says that setting up a "palestinian state" is a "national interest" of the USA. That could be true but it is a matter of interpretation at best or a matter of definition. Bush and the State Department want people to believe that it is within their competence to decide what is the American national interest. But should Americans rely on Bush or the State Department? Jimmy carter and his power behind the throne, Zbig Brzezinski, helped bring the Islamic fanatic Khomeini to power in Iran. The current ranting, bomb-brandishing leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, was a follower of Khomeini. So carter-zbig's policy helped bring Ahmadinejad to power years later and now the world faces the threat of the atomic bomb in the hands of maniacs. In 1990, james baker, Daddy Bush's secretary of state, helped fascist Syria take over most of Lebanon. This kind of policy is sometimes called "realism." Yes, it's real, real kooky. No doubt walt-mearsheimer agree that a "palestinian state" is a national interest of the United States, one of those national interests that they often talk about as a general category but don't specify when they complain that Israel thwarts US "national interests." If so, then Bush Junior and walt-mearsheimer are on the same team.

That is, walt-mearsheimer aid Bush and Condi Rice [signorina riso amaro] in promoting a "palestinian state." But it is seldom argued any more or even questioned whether there is a "palestinian people," for if there were no "palestinian people," then people throughout the world might ask: If there is no "palestinian people," then why is a "palestinian state" necessary?
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: more lies of Annapolis and the "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Land of Israel, etc.

Quote from Israel's ambassador to the UN

Back in 1979, Yehuda Blum said the following:

Stop the Annapolis Conference for War & Genocide!!!

olmert is not a legitimate prime minister!! No concession of Jewish national rights that he makes at Annapolis --or has already made in the past-- has any legitimacy or validity!!

The latest olmert scandal is that today, 25 November 2007, the Israeli police were supposed to release their recommendations as to whether or not to prosecute him for crimes of corruption in the Bank Leumi case, which is only one of the four or five corruption scandals that olmert has been involved in. Three of these corruption cases have been under criminal investigation for a few months, and less formal investigation before that. The Bank Leumi scandal was investigated by the State Controller who recommended prosecution to the Attorney General. The latter personage is another corrupt character who is delaying prosecution in this and other cases on account of his anti-national ["leftist"] political leanings. The police recommendation is probably for prosecution of olmert in this case because otherwise there would not have been pressure by forces unnamed to delay announcement of the police recommendation.

In any event, Bush and Condi and the State Department are pretending that they are negotiating with a legitimate Israeli prime minister at Annapolis. But they know better. They are conscious promoters of the Arab racist and imperialist cause against Israel. They have become conscious supporters of Arab terrorism, and faciliators of terrorism. By encouraging Arab anti-Israel terrorism, they encourage Islamic terrorism everywhere --including against the United States, their own country.

Bush, Condi and the State Department have invited Syria to the Annapolis Conference. Thus, they knowingly encourage and support an established state that is a terrorist state, a gangster state that has designs to rule its neighbor Lebanon and denies Lebanon's sovereignty. Syria has used its agents in Lebanon to assassinate political leaders, members of parliament, prime ministers, former prime ministers, and journalists in Lebanon who opposed Syrian control of that country. Syria is a gangster state that spreads Nazi-like propaganda against the Jews. Yet, Bush --who pretends to be against terrorism and in favor of international law and order-- pleaded with the Syrian gangsters in chief to come to Condi's Annapolis garden party where pieces of Israel's living body will be served to the guests as hors-d'oeuvres.

We all know that Mahmud Abbas [Abu Mazen is his terrorist nom de guerre] is an unreformed terrorist who pretends to be moderate and favor peace. But words are cheap as we all know. We were promised "peace" at the time that the Oslo accord was signed in Washington on the White House lawn. Our lives became much much worse after Oslo and only constant vigilance by Israel's heroic Army and Border Guard keep us protected from mass murderers today.

One of Condi's demands was that Israel stop building in Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria, called "settlements" by Condi's guided press and media. Judea & Samaria are the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Land of Israel as a whole [grosso modo] was called Judea by the Roman Empire in its heyday. Judea & Samaria of today are also parts of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference [1920], endorsed by the League of Nations [1922], confirmed by the UN in its charter [Article 80], and NOT cancelled by the UN partition plan recommended by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. To prevent Jews from inhabiting the heart of their ancient homeland is RACIST, besides showing contempt for international law. Of course, Israel's enemies, including the State Department, the British Foreign Office, the Arab League states, and the EU Commission make opposing claims in order to further their Judeophobic plans. Honest people will express contempt for the corrupt machinations of Israel's enemies. Bush, Condi, the State Department and the British Foreign Office support anti-Jewish racism!

Annapolis is a political crime. It endangers decent people everywhere, even those Arabs who may want real peace. Annapolis promotes terrorism, war, and genocide!!! It is not legitimate. Its decisions and conclusions will not be legitimate.

STOP THE ANNAPOLIS CRIME!!!

Was Karl Marx a Zionist NeoCon? -- Part 2 -- Was Marx the Previous Incarnation of Hugh Fitzgerald?

It is clear that Karl Marx would be considered quite politically incorrect today. He had a low opinion of Islam and Islamic society and of its capacity for civilization. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks early declared their support for the political claims of Muslim peoples and nations against those of non-Muslims, even those of dhimmi peoples who had suffered mass murder at Muslim hands, like the Armenians [see here]. Curiously, the Bolshevik pro-Muslim, pro-Arab policy converged with that of the British Empire --supposed imperialist enemies and betes noires of Communism. This was especially so in the Land of Israel, where the British government was supposed to help Jews return to their ancient homeland and to foster development of the Jewish National Home, designated by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations.

Here Karl Marx sounds like Hugh Fitzgerald, the learned anti-Islamist of the JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch websites. Even in 1853 there was a pro-Islamist or Turcophile press in Britain, just as today. According to Marx, this Turcophilic press was based on wealthy capitalists, bourgeois, politically Liberal, whose voice was the The Daily News, and who were interested in developing trade with the Ottoman Empire. Sound familiar? How about American business interests and publications that call for a pro-Arab policy against Israel on the grounds of business and trade? Marx first summarizes their argument:

"It is said that Turkey is decaying; but where is the decay? Is not civilization rapidly spreading in Turkey and trade extending? Where you see nothing but decay our statistics prove nothing but progress." [Marx's summary of the Turcophile position]

Here is Marx's response. He first points out that much of the trade with Turkey is in goods that go on from there to other countries, just as Holland imported many goods in transit to Germany:

. . . what every statistician would immediately, in the case of Holland, treat as a clumsy concoction, the whole of the Liberal press of England, including the learned Economist, tries, in the case of Turkey, to impose upon the public credulity. And then, who are the traders in Turkey? Certainly not the Turks. Their way of promoting trade, when they were yet in their original nomadic state, consisted in robbing caravans; and now that they are a little more civilized it consists in all sorts of arbitrary and oppressive exactions. Remove all the Turks out of Europe, and trade will have no reason to suffer. And as to progress in general civilization, who are they that carry out that progress in all parts of European Turkey? Not the Turks, for they are few and far between [in European Turkey], and can hardly be said to be settled anywhere except in Constantinople and two or three small country districts. It is the Greek and Slavonic [Slavic] middle class in all the towns and trading posts who are the real support of whatever civilization is effectually imported into the country. That part of the population is constantly rising in wealth and influence, and the Turks are more and more driven into the background. Were it not for their monopoly of civil and military power they would soon disappear. But that monopoly has become impossible for the future, and their power is turned into impotence except for obstructions in the way of progress. The fact is, they must be got rid of.

Strong words from Marx, a Hugh Fitzgerald avant la lettre. Needless to say, we do not wholly agree with Marx. He does not give credit to the civilizing role of the Jews living in the Balkans. Further, Albania had a Muslim majority already at that time, and Bosnia and Kossovo had large Muslim minorities, perhaps a Muslim majority in Kossovo, maybe. But the more than 150 years that have passed since Marx wrote these lines do show that Islam is an obstacle to civilization. So why do the United States and the United Kingdom [Britain] insist on promoting political Islam in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example? Or through the pro-terrorist, pro-barbarian Annapolis Conference?
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Peace Process frauds and lies, peace follies, peacemongering = warmongering, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and elsewhere in the Land of Israel, etc.

A Gem of Absurdity from walt-mearsheimer

UPDATINGS at bottom -- original quote here below as of 12-2-2007

Finally got a look at walt-mearsheimer's magnum opus, a rather inflated tome called The Israel Lobby. Anyhow, I had a chance to read some of their slick but shallow arguments. Just leafing through the pages, I found a gem. In the chapter on Israel's moral case, they write that Israel's supporters could --in Israel's defense-- point to Arab threats to destroy Israel in several wars, 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. W-M admit that in 1948, some Arab leaders called for "throwing the Jews into the sea." But then they claim that the Arab leaders really didn't mean it. It was all just for domestic consumption, walt-mearsheimer claim. They go on to argue that this was because the Arab leaders knew that they couldn't destroy Israel. So here W-M make a leap of logic: Because the Arab leaders allegedly knew that the Arabs couldn't win the war against Israel, this means that they didn't want to destroy Israel.

Of course the whole argument is full of holes like swiss cheese --and it stinks like moldy cheese too. The Arab spokesmen were threatening war at the UN before the UN General Assembly made its partition recommendation on 29 November 1947. At that time, and up to 15 May 1948, Israel was not yet an established state. It was a dream, an idea, a hope. It had lightly armed forces that stayed in the underground during British rule. But it could not bring in heavy weapons as long as the British forces remained in the country, unless they could be smuggled past the British --who were actively pro-Arab at that time. So why would the governments of Arab states, that could bring in heavy weapons, and did get British supplies, know that they couldn't defeat the as yet unborn state of Israel? How do walt-mearsheimer know what the Arab leaders knew or believed at that time? The Arab League governments were NOT saying: We can't defeat the Jews. Indeed, they were boasting in their usual bellicose Arab rodomontade that they could win, and this view was shared by high officials in the British and US governments, for instance. Such as expert opinions produced by the UK & US governments that the Jews could not hold out against the Arabs. Abdul-Rahman Azzam, secretary-general of the Arab League, warned the UN that Arab states would use force against any partition plan and boasted of a bloody Arab victory in the coming war with the Jews:

'This war will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.
'[Ahkbar Al-Yom, October 11, 1947 quoted in Jewish Agency for Palestine, Memorandum 1948; Howard Sachar dates this statement to the Spring of 1948, in his A History of Israel (New York: Alfred Knopf 1976), p 333; Leonard Davis & Moshe Decter date the statement to 15 May 1948, in Myths and Facts 1982 (Washington, DC: Near East Research 1982), p 20]

Can we imagine Arab officials telling each other at the Arab League conference at Bludan, Syria, in June 1946, as they reached a consensus to send forces to the Land of Israel to prevent emergence of a Jewish state: Of course, we can't win the war. And we really don't want to throw the Jews into the sea. But we must fight for the sake of fanatic domestic public opinion and we will be just delighted when we are defeated in a humiliating fashion. Public opinion will be delighted too. This defeat will bring us all closer together, governments and the fanatics in the street. Then we will plan together on how to lose the next war.

There may have been some well-informed and thoughtful Arabs who had doubts, who thought that maybe the Arabs couldn't drive Israel into the sea. However, since the Arab states had been established as states, they had been able to build regular armies, train troops, and import weapons -- which weapons exporting states were quite willing, if not eager, to supply [in the United Kingdom's case]. Further, the Arab Legion [al-Jaysh al-`Arabi] of Transjordan was British-commanded [by Sir John Bagot Glubb] , British-financed and equipped, and most senior officers were British.

Why should the Arab leadership have believed differently from the UK and US government experts?? Moreover, given their traditional contempt for Jews who were traditionally at the bottom of the social ladder in the Arab-Muslim countries, given the age-old Arab/Muslim teachings about their own military superiority and the inferiority of the Jews, what else could a normal Arab-Muslim, educated in his own tradition, think but that the Arabs would be gloriously victorious? Furthermore, the UK and US were urging the Arab League states to go to war against the as yet unborn state [about US policy, see the research of Professor Shlomo Slonim].

Now, the widely known Arab journalist, Muhammad Hassanayn Haykal [Mohamed Hassanein Heikal], wrote --on the eve of Soviet leader Khrushchov's visit to Egypt [1964]-- that the British had urged Egypt to go to war against the soon to be proclaimed Jewish state. He added that the British had given the Egyptian army weapons and ammunition from British stocks in the Suez Canal Zone, at that time under British control [of course, the Egyptian army had to go through the Suez Canal Zone in order to get to Israel, which may have been so obvious to Haykal that he didn't bother to point it out]. Haykal also claimed --after the fact [in 1964]-- that he had known in 1948 that the Arabs could not win and that he had discussed this with prime minister Nuqrashy Pasha who knew it too. Here, Haykal does what walt-mearsheimer do. He too indulges in after the fact psychologizing. He argues that the British knew that Egypt could not win and wanted Egypt to be defeated in the war with Israel in order to weaken Egypt's negotiating position when negotiations came up with Britain over the Suez Canal's status. That's why the UK pressured Egypt to get into the war, Haykal claimed.

Be that as it may, the decision-makers in Arab League states [in Egypt the king] decided to destroy Israel at birth. And their threats of war and massacre were heard at the UN General Assembly too. Here is the crucial question for Walt & Mearsheimer. Can they produce records of the deliberations at the Arab League meetings that decided to go to war? If so, can these records or minutes or protocols or proceedings demonstrate that the majority of Arab states at that time admitted an Arab military incapacity to defeat Israel?

Walt-Mearsheimer claim that the bellicose threats to Israel, the Arab rodomontade, were for domestic consumption. Indeed, there were attacks, pogroms, on Jews in Arab countries in that period, such as in self-governing Egypt and in Aden which was under British control. So the Arab home front or "street" wanted to kill Jews. But if the leaders knew that they could not win a war against the Jews, then why would they rationally send their armies into a certainly humiliating defeat [any defeat at the hands of the despised Jews would be humiliating!!]? Such a defeat could and DID lead to the overthrow of existing Arab governments --as in Egypt and Syria. They could instead have loudly and for a long time condemned Britain for not preventing a Jewish state from emerging, or a similar diplomatic-political subterfuge, engaging in a lot of sound and fury to satisfy the fanatics at home, with little shooting.

The argument and the book are ridiculous. Mearsheimer has even admitted, in so many words, that he was lying. As we recall, one of the charges made in the original w-m article in the London Review of Books in 2006 [Nota Bene: the London Review] was that Israel and/or the Israel Lobby had pushed the Bush administration into the war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. However, in an interview on National Public Radio, Mearsheimer stated that the war on Iraq had been decided on by the US Govt before Israeli officials knew about it. According to Mearsheimer in this interview, the Israelis suggested that if there were to be a war, it should be against Iran, which Israel saw as more threatening an enemy at that time. But the Bush Administration decided otherwise. As to Walt-Mearsheimer, they knew that they were lying. As competent political scientists with the status of consultants to the State Department, they were part of policy making. They were in a position to know the truth. They lied knowingly and deliberately.

Now what are the context and the purpose of the w-m lies???
They and their article, book, media appearances, etc. are part of a concerted anti-Israel propaganda campaign by the Petro-Diplomatic Complex. Others taking part are former president Carter, James Baker-Lee Hamilton, Professor William Polk-George McGovern, etc. All those named have recently produced tracts that argue against either Israel's morality or moral rights, or against Israel's usefulness to the United States, that is, to US interests, or both. One problem is What are American interests abroad generally, and in the Middle East in particular? Another issue is: Who is to decide what these interests are? Is it the Petro-Diplomatic Complex that has had the upper hand in the US's Middle East policymaking over the years? The purpose of the campaign appears to be to besmirch Israel in public opinion in the US so much so that Israel is softened up for a diplomatic crushing at an international "peace" conference, which Secretary of State Rice is conveniently preparing for the end of November. This conference will be a conference in favor of Arab terrorism. It will reward Arab anti-Israel terrorism. Rice has already pressured Israel to release terrorist prisoners in order to supposedly support the "moderate" Mahmud Abbas [Abu Mazin].

The aims of the w-m book and of the campaign by carter, baker, et al., are objectively genocidal.

As evidence that US policy --especially under Bush-- is anti-Israel, Bush is the first US president to come out unequivocally for an Arab state to be named "palestine" to be set up in the Land of Israel. Such a state would inevitably threaten Israel militarily and economically. The Arabs are not now ready to make a real peace with Israel on any reasonable terms. Another sign of Bush's hostility to Israel were his demands at the beginning of Israel's anti-terrorist offensive in 2002 --the Defensive Shield operation-- that Israel's army immediately withdraw from the areas assigned to the Palestinian Authority --areas from which the mass murder bombers were coming. These demands are forgotten now in the present surreal air of political deception in which we live.

UPDATING #1-- There was a precedent for throwing a hated ethnic group into the sea: In 1922 Turkish nationalist forces led by Kemal Ataturk drove the Greek population of Smyrna into the sea. Smyrna had been a Greek-speaking city for more than 2,000 years. It remained predominantly Greek in population even after the Ottoman Empire conquered Smyrna from the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire hundreds of years before 1922. Smyrna also had a Turkish-Muslim minority, a Jewish quarter, an Armenian quarter, and many Europeans and Americans who had come for purposes of trade or were there for religious/missionary purposes. There were also Levantines, people with mixed European and Greek or Armenian ancestry. These Levantines too were mainly involved in trade and services for the European and American communities. In 1922 the Turkish nationalist army of Ataturk drove the Greeks out of the city, while it massacred the surviving Armenians in the city and set fire to Greek and Armenian neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the fleets of the major Western powers sat at anchor in the harbor of Smyrna. They had orders not to interfere with the slaughter perpetrated by the Kemalist forces and were reluctant to help the refugees. Greece sent a motley assortment of boats to take out the refugees, including surviving Armenians. Since the expulsion of the Greeks and the massacre of the Armenians, the city has been officially called Izmir. This is a historical precedent for what those Arabs may have been thinking who called for driving the Jews into the sea, as walt-mearsheimer admit they said.
Sources:
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Quay at Smyrna," in In Our Time [starting with the 1930 edition of the anthology In Our Time; New York, Scribner's]. This is a fictionalized account of the events at Smyrna that rings true. Hemingway was a reporter in Anatolia and the Balkans in that period. See his description of a Kemalist official in this post.
George Horton, The Blight of Asia -- Horton was the US consul in Smyrna in 1922, that is, he was an eyewitness.
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
- - - - - - -
UPDATING #2 as of 12-2-2007 Original Quote from walt-mearsheimer

. . . some argue that the Arabs precipitated wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 in order to "drive Israel into the sea."
While there is no question that Israel faced serious threats in its early years, the Arabs were not attempting to destroy Israel in any of these wars. This is not because the Arabs were happy about the presence of a Jewish state in their midst --they were not-- but rather because they have never had the capability to win a war against Israel, much less defeat it decisively. There is no question that some Arab leaders talked about "driving the Jews into the sea" during the 1948 war, but this was largely rhetoric designed to appease their publics. In fact, the Arab leaders were mainly concerned with gaining territory for themselves at the expense of the Palestinians, one of the many occasions when Arab governments put their own interests ahead of the Palestinians' welfare. [Walt & Mearsheimer, pp 83-84]

For more commentary on walt-mearsheimer: see this link.

- - - - - - -
Coming: UK journalopropagandist, Max Hastings, gushes over the w-m book, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

Bush Threatens Middle East Peace with a "peace conference" -- Condoleeza soft on Hamas, like Tony

What's the background to George Bush II's threat to Middle East peace in the form of a "peace conference" to help Abu Mazen, the terrorist in a suit?

George the Second has earned fame for his pretense to be fighting a "war on terror." But when the chips are down, George follows his family's traditions. He comes from a family of Israel's enemies. Dubya's father, George I, was the patron of Jim Baker whose damage to life in the Middle East has been monumental. In the 1980s, George I, while vice president, encouraged Arafat to keep on fighting Israel in Lebanon [1982]. George I and Jim encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, thus necessitating a huge American and allied military expedition to get the Iraqis out of there. In the interim between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the start of American bombing of Baghdad in January 1991, Baker found time to help Hafiz Assad complete his takeover of Lebanon [see link above]. In other words, the final US position was that it was wrong for Saddam Hussein to take over Kuwait, an action which threatened the favorite old friends in the Middle East of the American Petro-Diplomatic Complex, the Wahhabite Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, it was OK for Syria to take over Lebanon [see link].
So much for James Baker.

George II has been advertising himself as an enemy of terrorism, fighting a "war on terror." Yet, his secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice [her first name is taken from the Italian phrase Con Dolcezza = sweetly, although Riso Amaro = Bitter Rice, fits her better] has her sympathies for some terrorists. Despite the official US position allegedly rejecting Hamas, which included some unfriendly remarks about Hamas in Bush's speech announcing the "international peace conference," Condi sees Hamas differently. Condi thinks that Hamas has been a "resistance movement" all along and now has an opportunity to become "political," just as Tony Blair was trying to promote a "political" Hamas as far back as 2002. This is the old illusion or cynical ploy that perhaps extremist fanatics can be made reasonable by having to bear the responsibilities of state power [which Hamas now holds in Gaza]. This illusion was broadcast about Hitler after his constitutional rise to power in Germany in January 1933, when the state president Hindenburg, appointed Hitler chancellor [= prime minister]. But Rice's sympathetic remarks about Hamas are a sinister foreboding of what Bush's "peace conference" could turn out to be. Just bear in mind the sinister consequences of Jim Baker's Madrid "peace conference" in 1991. It is plain that such conferences give Judeophobic empires, like the UK, the opportunity to gang up on Israel with the "peace" slogan as a pretext for aiding Nazis, in this case Hamas, just as Britain aided Hitler to get ready for World War 2 by means of the 1938 Munich "peace conference." Bush is holding out a carrot to Hamas and that can only encourage other terrorists to think that their crimes will be forgiven by the United States if they only promise to be good boys after their major crimes have been committed. Of course, taking the side of either Abu Mazen or Hamas on territorial and other issues in dispute with Israel can only encourage all of Israel's enemies to attack Israel and its people --and to raise their demands on Israel. Meanwhile, pro-Nazi "leftist" intellectuals like Ian Buruma, no`am chomsky, Pascal Boniface, Tariq Ramadan and others play the game of the empires.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: more on James Baker & US policy toward Israel, peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, etc.