The Liberal Franklin Roosevelt Urged Keeping Vichy Anti-Jewish Laws in Place

Many, probably most, American Jews were great admirers of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was considered a great Liberal. He was said to have brought America out of the Great Depression that began in 1929. He showed his Liberalism by formally recognizing the Communist Soviet Union and establishing diplomatic relations with it. He quietly helped labor unions to organize previously unorganized industries. His time was the heyday of the CIO. What most Jews were unaware of at the time or did not understand was how Roosevelt and his Administration, including some Republicans prominent in the Administration's foreign policy & foreign relations establishment (notably the Dulleses, John Foster, Allen, and their sister Eleanor), were allowing Nazi mass murder of Jews to proceed unhindered during the war that the US and Britain were fighting against Nazi Germany. Yet helping the Jews by interfering with railroad transports of Jews to the death camps, bombing the crematoria and gas chambers, supplying weapons to partisans in the forests and the ghettoes could have severely interfered with the German war effort. As we know, these actions were not taken nor was any substantial number of Jewish refugees allowed into the United States or its dependencies nor was significant pressure put on Britain to obey its commitment to foster Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home, Israel, instead of excluding Jews from the National Home.

Raphael Medoff has recently come up with the shocking story of how Roosevelt actually encouraged French authorities in North Africa to maintain Vichy Nazi-inspired anti-Jewish laws in effect in that region after its liberation from Vichy control in late 1942-early 1943. This info is new even to me. Its relevance for today is what Jews and Israel can expect from so-called Liberal American politicians. Obama has often been described by his own supporters and admirers as a Liberal in the grand tradition of FDR. This new revelation by Medoff shows us what the grand tradition of FDR actually meant for the freedom and the very lives of Jews.

The following is the introduction to Medoff's article by Bataween of the Point of No Return blog, followed by Medoff's own article:

At Purim in 1943, Jews in North Africa were celebrating their liberation by US troops from Vichy and Nazi occupation with their very own Megillat Hitler. But Dr Raphael Medoff, in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, reveals how the US authorities dragged their feet when it came to repealing the Vichy regime's anti-Jewish measures :

Among the more remarkable documents of the Holocaust is a scroll, created in North Africa in 1943, called “Megillat Hitler.” Written in the style of Megillat Esther and the Purim story, it celebrates the Allies’ liberation of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, which saved the local Jewish communities from the Nazis. What the scroll’s author did not realize, however, was that at the very moment he was setting quill to parchment, those same American authorities were actually trying to keep in place the anti-Jewish legislation imposed in North Africa by the Nazis.On November 8, 1942, American and British forces invaded Nazi-occupied Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. It took the Allies just eight days to defeat the Germans and their Vichy French partners in the region.

For the 330,000 Jews of North Africa, the Allied conquest was heaven-sent. The Vichy regime that had ruled since the summer of 1940 had stripped the region’s Jews of their civil rights, severely restricted their entrance to schools and some professions, confiscated Jewish property, and tolerated sporadic pogroms against Jews by local Muslims. In addition, thousands of Jewish men were hauled away to forced-labor camps. President Franklin Roosevelt, in his victory announcement, pledged “the abrogation of all laws and decrees inspired by Nazi governments or Nazi ideologists.”

But there turned out to be a discrepancy between FDR’s public rhetoric and his private feelings.

On January 17, 1943, Roosevelt met in Casablanca with Major-General Charles Nogues, a leader of the new “non-Vichy” regime. When the conversation turned to the question of rights for North African Jewry, Roosevelt did not mince words: “The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population… The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany, were Jews.” (It is not clear how FDR came up with that wildly exaggerated statistic.)

Various Jewish communities around the world have established local Purim-style celebrations to mark their deliverance from catastrophe.

The Jews of Frankfurt, for example, would hold a “Purim Vintz” one week after Purim, in remembrance of the downfall of an antisemitic agitator in 1620. Libyan Jews traditionally organized a “Purim Ashraf” and a “Purim Bergel” to recall the rescue of Jews in those towns, in 1705 and 1795, respectively.

The Jewish community of Casablanca, for its part, declared the day of the 1942 Allied liberation “Hitler Purim,” and a local scribe, P. Hassine, created the “Megillat Hitler.” (The original is on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.) The seven chapters of the scroll poignantly blend the flavor of the tale of ancient Persia with the amazing stroke of fortune that the Jews of Casablanca had themselves just experienced. It uses phrases straight from Megillat Esther, such as “the month which was turned from sorrow to rejoicing” and “the Jews had light and gladness, joy and honor,” side by side with modern references such as “Cursed be Hitler, cursed be Mussolini.”

The Jews of North Africa had much to celebrate. But after the festivities died down, questions began to arise. The Allies permitted nearly all the original senior officials of the Vichy regime in North Africa to remain in the new government. The Vichy “Office of Jewish Affairs” continued to operate, as did the forced labor camps in which thousands of Jewish men were being held.

American Jewish leaders were loathe to publicly take issue with the Roosevelt administration, but by the spring of 1943, they began speaking out. The American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress charged that “the anti-Jewish legacy of the Nazis remains intact in North Africa” and urged FDR to eliminate the Vichy laws. “The spirit of the Swastika hovers over the Stars and Stripes,” Benzion Netanyahu, director of the U.S. wing of the Revisionist Zionists (and father of Israel’s current prime minister) charged. A group of Jewish GIs in Algiers protested directly to U.S. ambassador Murphy. Editorials in a number of American newspapers echoed this criticism [here]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rafael Medoff is director of the David Wyman Institute which specializes on research into Roosevelt Administration policy towards the Jews during the Holocaust [here]

For info on the coup d'etat --mainly carried out by Algerian Jews-- to ease the American landing at Algiers as part of Operation Torch, see:
Elliot A Green, "Jewish Anti-Nazi Resistance in Wartime Algeria," Midstream (January 1989)

More on the US pro-Islam, pro-Arab Policy

US policy in the Middle East in the 20th century followed in the footsteps of British Middle Eastern policy, and can be seen as a continuation of it. It was no accident that the British upper crust called the American elite "our American cousins." Indeed, this was often true in a literal sense as many titled Britishers married rich American men and women. Therefore, cousins were found on both sides of the Atlantic.

British policy announced a pro-Islamic turn in 1920 when the Supreme Command of the WW One allies, the Entente powers, ordered the Greek army to stop advancing in Anatolia, and thereby to stop defeating the Turkish army. There is reason to believe that Britain was the leading power pushing for the order to the Greeks to stop. In that same year, British officers in Jerusalem --in what was then officially called Occupied Enemy Territory Administration-South-- encouraged Haj Amin el-Husseini to instigate anti-Jewish riots in order to discourage Great Power approval of the Jewish National Home principle at the San Remo Conference. This British encouragement for Arab violence against Jews in Israel was not at that time the official policy out of London but seems to have been a local initiative of British officers in the country, some or all of whom had been influenced by the notorious Tsarist forgery/plagiarism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Later, the London policy towards the Jewish National Home followed the local initiative and became hostile to the Jews, encouraging Arab hostility to Jews in the country. In other words, the Arabs became a tool of London for its own anti-Jewish hostility.

Back in Anatolia, in 1922, naval ships of the UK, US and other Western Great Powers watched as Ataturk's new Turkish army drove the Greeks of Anatolia and Smyrna into the sea at the Smyrna port, although Greek boats of all sorts were allowed to pick up refugees. Meanwhile, the powers did not oppose renewed massacres of Armenians in the city [see George Horton, Marjorie Housepian]. The new revolutionary Soviet Union also sided with the Turks in those years, thereby taking the same stance as the Western capitalist powers.

In other parts of the British Empire, the British encouraged Muslims against non-Muslims, and Arabs against non-Arab Muslims. In India, the UK encouraged Muslim demands for a separate state ["pakistan", which had never existed before] against the aspiration of the Indian National Congress for a unified India. In the former Ottoman Empire, the UK saw to it that the vilayet [province] of Mosul, inhabited not by Arabs but by Kurdish Muslims , Assyrian Christians, Jews and smaller ethno-religious groups, be transferred to the new, British-sponsored Kingdom of Iraq and taken away from the new Turkish Republic. Some say that this was because oil had been discovered in and around the city of Mosul, which would be more under British influence as a part of Iraq --then under a British mandate-- than as a part of Turkey. In Iraq, the British winked at the massacre of thousands of Assyrians in 1933 at the hands of the Iraqi Arab army.

During WW2, the UK violated its mandate to foster development of the Jewish National Home by severely limiting the number of Jews to be allowed to immigrate into the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home. This was the notorious 1939 White Paper policy. More generally, UK foreign minister Anthony Eden came out in support of pan-Arab nationalism by calling for formation of what became the Arab League. Eden's speech came on 29 May 1941, just three days before the notorious pro-Nazi pogrom against Jews in Baghdad [1 & 2 June 1941]. Hence, it would have been only natural for Eden to keep British troops outside Baghdad at that time from intervening to stop the massacre of the Jews. Be that as it may, British troops there at that time did not intervene.

When the Jewish underground in Israel was fighting for independence and to have the UK let Jewish Holocaust survivors into the country, the UK continued to refuse to honor its commitments under the mandate. Although Pres. Truman had called for 100,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors to be allowed into Israel by the UK in 1946, by 1947 the US State Dept and other USGovt agencies were encouraging the Arab war effort against the as yet unborn Israel. Here the US slipped into the role of continuing the British anti-Jewish, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim policy.
The UK in Israel supported Arab forces against the Jews, fighting the Jews directly in Yafo [Jaffa] and in Jerusalem.

In 1952, British and US operatives encouraged and helped Nasser and his pro-Hitlerite "Free Officers" to overthrow the parliamentary monarchy of King Farouq. Mubarak belonged to the regime put in place by Nasser and the "Free Officers" in 1952. In that year, American mainstream publications celebrated the fall of King Farouq by explaining that the rebels were against Farouq's "corruption." In Iraq, in the 1960s and 1970s, the USA supported the Arab national socialist Ba`ath Party, the crowning glory of which was Saddam Hussein. After Israeli aircraft had destroyed the Iraqi Osirak atomic development facility [1981], the US administration wanted to denounce Israel for this defensive action, although it did not because public opinion was with Israel. The US also formally "recognized" the PLO in November 1988, although high level contacts with the PLO had gone on for decades.

In early 1979, the Carter Administration --its foreign policy directed by the Sorcerer's Apprentice, Zbigniew Brzezinski-- helped the Islamist fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini, take over Iran. Was Zbig unaware of Khomeini's fanaticism and bigotry? It was no secret to specialists on Iran at that time where Khomeini stood. Likewise, James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence [Intelligence?], knows where the Muslim Brotherhood stands and pretended it was something else. Interestingly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national insecurity advisor has also been an advisor to Obama. Zbig's grand theory was and --apparently-- still is to build up Islamic fanaticism. No doubt in pursuit of this purpose, Obama sent Zbig to Damascus in February 2008, months before his election. Zbig was probably supposed to tell Junior Assad that if Obama were elected, then the Assads would have a friend in the White House. The fact that Damascus and Assad's very own mouth are world centers of Judeophobic agitprop and hate indoctrination, did not deter either Zbig or Obama.

These facts among others are the background to Obama administration efforts to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt. I think that the disciples of Zbig succeeded all too well in Iran. We don't need another Khomeini, this time in Egypt. But stopping Obama's goal from being realized needs constant criticism of Obama for the dangerous course that he is taking.

Sources
Mitchell Bard, The Arab Lobby (New York: Harper Collins 2010) [a lengthy excerpt is found here]
Isaiah Friedman, British Pan-Arab Policy, 1915-1922 (2009) [see synopsis here & here]
Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return (London 1978)
George Horton, The Blight of Asia [Horton was the US consul in Smyrna in 1922]
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
Lord Kinross, Ataturk; A Biography of Mustafa Kemal (1965)

Richard Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary
Jacques de Morgan, The History of the Armenian People (Boston: Hairenik Press 1918)
Horace Samuel, Revolt by Leave (London)
E K Sarkisian & R G Sahakian, Vital Issues in Modern Armenian History (Watertown, MA: Armenian Studies 1965)
Shlomo Slonim, "The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine," Political Science Quarterly, (Fall 1979)
Bernard Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945.
_ _ _ _ _ _. The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929. (British Historical Society)
Meir Zamir [see several online articles by Zamir on British policy in the 1944 to 1948 period in HaArets & Jerusalem Post]
William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine

- - - - - -
One Jerusalem on the changes in Egypt [includes link to Victor David Hanson].
2-24-2011 At least one mainstream journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, talks common sense about the Muslim Brotherhood. If he could only get the ears of Obama, Hilary, James Clapper, and the other fantasy mongers in the Administration [here]
Another MSM journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, also gives helpful info about the MB's hatred of Jews, specifically Qaradawi's explanation that Muslim hatred of Jews is rooted in Islam and that Muslims must kill all Jews before Judgment Day can come [here]. For those unfamiliar with Islamic lore, this article demonstrates that hatred for Israel is rooted in Islam's hatred for Jews and has nothing especially to do with "settlements" or "occupation."

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

US Congress Endorses a Jewish State in the Jewish Homeland

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

As Prez Obama gets ready to meet Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, he ought to bear in mind the past commitments that American presidents and the Congress have made in favor of setting up the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel. Here is the Committee on Foreign Affairs [name of committee of that time] of the House of Representatives, Resolution 52:

. . . expressing satisfaction at the recreation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race

[source: Reuben Fink. America and Palestine (New York: American Zionist Emergency Council; 1944)]

Here is a joint resolution of of the US Congress [1922]:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. . .

[source: Reuben Fink. America and Palestine (New York: American Zionist Emergency Council; 1944)]

President Obama should be reminded of these prior US commitments before he complains that Israel does not honor its commitments. The British Empire, however, was the pioneer in the field of violating solemn commitments to the Jewish people, when the UK violated its mandate from the League of Nations to foster development of the Jewish National Home through its 1939 "White Paper on Palestine." This White Paper policy doomed innumerable Jews to being caught up in the Holocaust. Yet Britain still considers itself morally fit to lecture morality to the world and to Israel in particular.

Here is more on the commitments of US presidents and the Congress to the Jewish National Home:

Woodrow Wilson 1919	Warren Harding 1922	Calvin Coolidge 1925	Barack Obama 2009	Hillary Clinton 2009	George Mitchell 2009

The U.S. 2009: "Two-state solution is the only solution"
Congress 1922: One Jewish National Home in Palestine

April 20, 2009
Eli E. Hertz

For a PDF printable version please click HERE

The current U.S. administration that is so persistent on the need to honor 'past agreements' seems to ignore unwavering support for reconstructing the Jewish national home in Palestine by our past presidents and both Houses of Congress:

U.S. Resolution 322: A joint resolution of both Houses of Congress unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. June 30, 1922.

President Woodrow Wilson: "I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth." March 3, 1919.

President Warren G. Harding: Signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. September 21, 1922.

President Calvin Coolidge: Signed the Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to British rights in Palestine. The convention was ratified by the Senate on February 20, 1925, and by the president on March 2, 1925. The Convention was proclaimed on December 5, 1925­. The convention's text incorporated the "Mandate for Palestine " text, including the preamble. By doing so, the U.S. government recognized and confirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – as is spelled out in the Mandate document.

The following text was selected from the U.S. Congressional Record (1922) and exhibits the powerful sense of the Member of Congress in favor of reestablishing the Jewish national home in Palestine:

"Palestine of to-day, the land we now know as Pales­tine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from re­turning.

"At different periods various alien people succeeded them, but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land. To-day it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument, and every trace of whatever civili­zation remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Pales­tine . The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to. A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine.

"But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to that question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland. Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews to-day are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing the Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Pales­tine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is some­thing providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of its people."

U.S. Congressional Records 9801 (1922)

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

What the World Needs to Know Now about the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu flies to Washington to meet His Phoniness, here are some points to bring up to the world.


The US president during the Holocaust was Franklin D Roosevelt, known as liberal and a progressive, like Obama. FDR made no effort to help the Jews in the death camps, the labor camps, or on the railroads on their way to them, or the Jews in the ghettoes, as in Warsaw. The British policy was that their BBC "news" outlet could not report on the Holocaust until too much became known about it in London and continuing to ignore it would have lost credibility for the bbc. FDR made a few minor gestures in the last half of the war which supplied little help to the Jews. This was done under considerable public pressure.

The UK issued the "White Paper on Palestine" in 1939 which in effect revoked unilaterally the UK's mandate from the League of Nations to foster development of the Land of Israel as the Jewish National Home. This was a violation of international law, as the League's Permanent Mandates Commission concluded. But the UK was not moved to allow Jews into Israel when the Jews most needed a home, even a temporary refuge. This was a precedent of a major Western power violating a solemn commitment to help the Jews. Israel can expect nothing better from Washington. Tony Blair in facts speaks of his pet project of another Arab state in the Land of Israel, as if the UK had never betrayed the Jews so severely.

The vehement anger in Washington and London against Jews settling in/moving to/ Judea-Samaria, parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home, is RACISM. It is simply the old Judeophobia dressed up in fake anti-imperialist garb. Obama as a Black man should be the last US official to push this Judeophobic, RACIST policy. However, it is undeniably useful to the anti-Jewish racists that they have a brown-face as their front man to hide behind. It is forgotten that the US Govt energetically worked to bring Black Americans into neighborhoods that were purely white, including ethnic neighborhoods of Irish, Italian, and Polish Americans. This was all done for the sake of anti-Racism. Why can't US officials today realize and admit that their policy on Jews in Judea-Samaria is anti-Jewish Racism?

If these foreign policy paladins are unaware, their anti-settlement policy allows the Arabs to continue their age-old oppression of Jews. Condoleeza Rice tried to pretend that somehow the Jews were racist to the Arabs. In fact, throughout history since the Arab Conquest, the Arabs have had the upper hand and have oppressed, exploited economically and humiliated Jews. Tony Blair and Obama ought to be informed of this historical reality. Maybe they really don't know.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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