Judea & Samaria Belong to Israel by International Law -- Declare this to the world

It has been reported that Obama and his administration --in their boundless rancor against Jews-- plan to join France's initiative for a "peace conference" to "settle" the Israel-"palestinian" conflict. The plan would be take the resolution resulting from the conference to the UN Security Council and there "sanctify" it as it were with a UN SC resolution which would replace and cancel UN SC 242 of 1967 which has been considered the international legal framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict since that year.

The content of the resolution is expected to "undermine the legitimacy of Israeli activity in Judea and Samaria. The estimate is that the Palestinians will raise it [the resolution] towards the end of the secular year, in the three weeks before President Barak Obama ends his tenure." [Maqor Rishon, 11-11-2016] Other reports consider a possible effort to define the before between Israel and the projected Arab state of palestine along the 1949 armistice lines --which were never borders-- and a demand for immediate or very quick Israel withdrawal to such lines. This is obviously unacceptable to Israel and would encourage Arab warfare and terrorism against Israel. The Arab state-in-waiting called the "Palestinian Authority" has already made it clear that it wants to drive Jews out of the whole country, on both sides of the Green Line, the armistice line from 1949. The PA has made clear its hatred for peace with Jews, which is also illustrated by its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In these circumstances, the best strategy for Israel is to declare that international law has already, long ago, recognized Jewish sovereignty over the whole land of Israel, including a belt of land east of the Jordan river. The ancient kingdom of Judea, recognized by Rome, included that belt of land as well as Samaria, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and the Bashan.

There is a sufficient body of legal argumentation supporting Israel's sovereignty and ownership of the land in question, and Judea-Samaria in particular. See notably the work of Howard Grief and Eugene Kontorovich and Avi Bell in English, and David Ruzie' in French. See a broad selection of articles and videos in English and French and Hebrew here.

Prime Minister Netanyahu can announce this through his facebook page as can other ministers. Likewise, the foreign ministry should make such a declaration. Now is the time.

The Delusions of Diplomats & Generals

UPDATING & CORRECTION: 3-17-2015
see at bottom

PM Netanyahu has his enemies at home as well as abroad. Some domestic enemies use their supposed expertise in military matters or intelligence to criticize the prime minister. It's no secret that the Labor Party continued to have great influence over state institutions even many years after the Likud became the major party in the country or  a party of roughly equal weight to Labor. The police, judiciary, military and intelligence services still underwent great Labor Party influence, including in appointments and promotions. Lately, a group of roughly 200 retired military and intelligence officials signed a joint statement decrying Netanyahu's policies and advocating election of Yits'haq Herzog as prime minister on the list of the Zionist Camp Party, basically a continuation of the Labor Party formed in combination with the small HaTnu`ah Party of Tsipi Livni  on an ad hoc basis for this election.

These military and intelligence "experts" made all sorts of criticisms of Netanyahu, including some regarding last summer's war in Gaza. Some of these criticisms attacked the prime minister from the "right," asking why he had not crushed Hamas totally, etc. Ya`aqov Amidror, himself a former intelligence chief, responded to some of these criticisms:

One of the critics claimed the Israel Defense Forces would be able to defend any border that emerged from the negotiations. This statement holds no water because sometimes you cannot fight terrorism at the border (in case you forgot: Israel had to reconquer Judea and Samaria in 2002 to stop the wave of terrorists attacks). It is very sad to see such professionally misguided comments be used for the sake of political mudslinging.

So any border can be defended, can it? But at what price? Do we want to give the Arabs military advantages, such as strategic terrain, mountains etc, that will tempt them to start another war? These would-be peacemakers end up causing war.

Amos Yadlin, a former defense official now designated by the "Zionist Camp" to be defense minister if it wins the election, objected to Netanyahu accepting an invitation from the US Congress to address it on the issue of the Iranian nuclear project.
He agrees with Netanyahu that the Iranian nuke is a problem but offers a different way of dealing with it. He proposes talking quietly to the US foreign policy and military establishments and winning their cooperation for acting jointly against the Iranian nuke. The problem is that Israel has no way of forcing the United States to cooperate in working against the Iranian nuke. Especially if it does not want to. And we now see that the White House and the State Department and the military and national security establishments of the United States are right now interested in allowing Iran to get The Bomb. For this purpose, they are accusing the senators and congressmen who had questioned their policy of interfering with policymaking and with their negotiations with Iran although the US constitution clearly gives the Senate the right and duty to examine all treaties before signature and then to approve or reject them. On the Iran Bomb issue, the previous Bush administration was not all that active in opposing an Iran Bomb and gave Iran "one last chance" to come clean about its efforts as far back as 2003. Gilad may understand that the present US Govt wants Iran to have The Bomb but what he is saying is totally different. He is holding out the pie-in-the-sky notion that Israel with a government led by Herzog could somehow persuade the American officials to do what they have not shown a desire to do over the last 15 years. Herzog for his part, supposedly told an American journalist that he trusted Obama to get a good deal in negotiations with Iran. Many or most US senators, including many Demcrats, do not agree. Maybe we could put a cute blonde wig on Herzog and call him Pollyanna.

Then there is the diplomat, Michael Oren. He believes in unilateral withdrawal from Arab population centers in Judea-Samaria, the so-called "west bank." He would retain most settlements under Israeli control but would withdraw the army from many areas, while "Israeli troops would still patrol strategic borders." Of course, Israel would be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and conventional military attack the more territory that it withdraws from. Moreover, some of the reasons that he cites for such a withdrawal, such as ending "occupation" of Arab-inhabited areas and Arab population growth outpacing Jewish population growth, are not valid. Israel gave up control nineteen years ago of all major Arab cities and population  centers to the "Palestinian Authority". What places is he talking about? Then it is also not true that Arab population growth in Judea-Samaria is so much greater than Jewish population growth in Israel. Lastly, we meet the main refutation of the utility of unilateralism. That is, any borders or lines that Israel withdraws or retreats to will not be recognized by the US or by the so-called international community or the UN,  EU, etc. Instead, Israel will be asked: Why don't you go farther? Why don't you go all the way? And pressure on Israel is sure to increase in such an eventuality.  Further unilateral retreat will be seen as a sign of admission of guilt for alleged "occupation of Arab lands" prior to the retreat.

Despite the stupidities of these ideas, whether or not sincerely held,  we will hear them over and over. Maybe they conceal some very cynical political calculations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A previous version of this post incorrectly identified Amos Gilad, who is still serving in the Israeli defense establishment, with the retired general, Amos Yadlin. Gilad is still serving as said. He is the head of the political/security branch of the Defense Ministry. He too, like Netanyahu, believes that Iran is the greatest security threat to Israel.

More on "Apartheid" in Judea-Samaria -- Rami Levy Plots against the Arab Consumer with Low Prices

An official of the "palestinian authority" accuses officials of the Authority of shopping in the Rami Levy supermarkets in defiance of the boycott of those stores declared by the "Authority." Levy is plotting against the "palestinian" consumer with his low prices [Kalkalist 9-19-2010; here]. See below the original Hebrew article and my translation. We have dealt before with the boycott declared by the Palestinian Authority against the Rami Levy supermarkets as an implicit rejection of the "apartheid" charge made against Israel by Jimmy Carter and other professional slanderers of Israel.

The Palestinian Authority against The Rami Levy Chain

The head of the Consumer Society in the Hebron District claims that officials of the Authority are making purchases in the Rami Levy branch in Gush Etsiyon. Thereby they violate the law [of the PA] that forbids purchasing goods in the settlements. If the phenomenon does not stop, he will publish the names of the senior officials [who do that]

Doron Paskin 9-19-2010

The Palestinian Authority has put Rami Levy in its gunsight. `Azmi Shayukhi, head of the Consumer Society in the Hebron District, claims that officials of the Authority violate the law [of the PA] that forbids purchasing goods in the settlements, when they come to the Israeli chain to make purchases. Shayukhi called on the authorities to stop those people and stressed that it was very shameful that they arrive in Palestinian Authority vehicles with red license plates [denoting official vehicles] in order to make purchases at Rami Levy. He promised that if the phenomenon did not stop, he would publish the names of the senior officials who make purchases in the Israeli chain.

Shayukhi claims that the Rami Levy chain operates several branches on the West Bank, and that the branch preferred by Palestinians is in Gush `Etsiyon. According to him, the chain offers especially cheap prices in its branches on the West Bank in order to attract Palestinian customers. Shayukhi claims that a large part of these products are produced in the settlements and therefore purchasing them is forbidden in the context of the boycott on settlement products which the Palestinian Authority promulgated. Moreover, according to the same spokesman, a considerable part of the employees in the Rami Levy stores are Palestinians who "have lost their national conscience," as he defined it. He attacked them with harsh words like "agents of the settlement" and "traitors."
The author is director of the research department of the Info Prod Research Co. (Middle East). www.infoprod.co.il [Kalkalist is a business section published by Yedi`ot Ahronot]

הרשות הפלסטינית נגד רשת רמי לוי
דורון פסקין 9-19-2010 כלכליסט

ראש אגודת הצרכן במחוז חברון טוען כי פקידים ברשות עושים קניות בסניף של רמי לוי בגוש עציון ובכך מפירים את החוק האוסר לרכוש מוצרים בהתנחלויות. אם התופעה לא תיפסק הוא יפרסם את שמות הבכירים
דורון פסקין
14 תגובות

ברשות הפלסטינית שמו את רמי לוי על הכוונת. עזמי שיוחי, ראש אגודת הצרכן במחוז חברון טוען כי פקידים ברשות מפירים את החוק האוסר רכישת מוצרים בהתנחלויות כשהם מגיעים לעשות קניות ברשת הישראלית. שיוחי קרא לרשויות לעצור את אותם אנשים והדגיש כי למרבה הבושה הם מגיעים ברכבי הרשות הפלסטינית עם לוחיות זיהוי אדומות כדי לעשות קניות אצל רמי לוי. הוא הבטיח כי אם התופעה לא תיפסק הוא יפרסם את שמות הבכירים העושים קניות ברשת הישראלית.

שיוחי טוען כי רשת רמי לוי מפעילה מספר סניפים בגדה המערבית כשהסניף המועדף על ידי הפלסטינים נמצא בגוש עציון. לדבריו, הרשת מציעה בסניפים בגדה המערבית מחירים זולים במיוחד כדי למשוך את הלקוחות הפלסטינים. שיוחיי טוען כי חלק גדול ממוצרים אלה מיוצרים בהתנחלויות ולכן רכישתם אסורה במסגרת החרם על מוצרי ההתנחלויות שהכריזה הרשות הפלסטינית. יתרה מזאת, לפי אותו דובר, חלק ניכר מהמועסקים בחנויות רמי לוי הם פלסטינים ש"איבדו את המצפון הלאומי שלהם" כהגדרתו. הוא תקף אותם במילים קשות כמו "סוכני ההתנחלות" ו"בוגדים".
הכותב הוא מנהל אגף המחקר בחברת אינפו פרוד מחקרים (המזה"ת

- - - - - - - - - -
More on the Rami Levy supermarket in Gush Etsiyon [here]

The Big Liars Claim "apartheid" in Israel --but Obama demands apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel

When fascism comes to America, it will
be called anti-fascism
attributed to Huey Long

While the Big Liars, such as Jimmy Carter, claim apartheid in Israel, in fact both Carter and his spiritual child in Judeophobia, Barack Hussein Obama, want to impose apartheid on Jews in the Land of Israel. What else can Obama's call on Israel to stop building for Jews in Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria mean?? Obama intends to press this horrendous racist demand on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to Washington in this coming week. Obama's demands in regard to Jews living in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are based on a whole series of lies. Some depend on the falsification of history, others on misrepresentations of international law, as well as on lies about what is actually occurring on the ground.

We have considered the Big Lie of "apartheid" in Israel in previous posts [here&here&here].
Asher Susser too takes up the fraud of "apartheid" in Israel [here] . I understand that Bret Stephens, a correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, has also issued a video denouncing that Big Lie [here].

Nevertheless, the so-called "peace camp" in Israel is manipulated by powerful, wealthy forces in the West and the Arab world and joins in the demands for apartheid to be imposed on Jews in the ancient Jewish homeland. Such was a demonstration in the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter of Jerusalem whence Jews were driven out of their homes by Arab irregulars in December 1947, later recaptured by the Haganah in April 1948 but soon given to Arab forces again by intervention by the British army, later taken over by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, a British-officered and commanded armed force. The Jews of Shimon haTsadiq Quarter were the first people in the country driven out of their homes in the Israeli War of Independence who could not go home after it since their homes were now Arab-occupied. Jews who fled south Tel Aviv in December 1947 could go home afterward since Jewish forces had defeated the Arab forces in Jaffa and the Arabs' British and mercenary allies [German POWs, Bosnian Muslim SS veterans, etc].

Hence, demonstrating against Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Shimon haTsadiq is not only demanding apartheid against Jews. It is also giving post-facto approval to the original Arab aggression of December 1947 and the Arabs' aim of driving Jews from their homes and the country as a whole. [such a demo took place on 3-8-2010].

The European Union and US policy is racist regarding Jewish settlements. The EU and the US State Dept are endeavoring to impose anti-Jewish apartheid in the Land of Israel. Obama's anti-Jewish policy has to be stopped.

In this regard, the remarks of E. W. Jackson, a black clergyman, are interesting. He recognizes that Obama's policy is anti-Israel and derives from antisemitism:

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
. . .
The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan - Wright's friend - to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". . . .
The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World, "he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently.
He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".
Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest - albeit undeclared red - sensibilities. Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long epriod of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.

E. W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney

Bishop Jackson clearly understands the anti-Jewish component of Obama's policy. Do enough people understand it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bishop Jackson's beautifully written essay has also been posted on Daniel Pipes' blog and has attracted various comments [here]

The Palestinian Authortiy --Obama's pets-- Refutes Big Lie of Apartheid in Judea-Samaria & Demands Apartheid There

While fanatic Israelophobes in the West rant and rave about alleged Israeli "apartheid," the Palestinian Authority --Israel's nemesis to be sure-- tells us --only by implication, of course-- that the "apartheid" charge against Israel is a lie, even in the Judea-Samaria. This is important because Jimmy Carter, one of Israel's professional defamers, fell back when he was challenged on calling Israel an apartheid state, in the title of his book [ghost-written no doubt], Palestine, Peace not Apartheid. Carter fell back, admitting that Israel within the old armistice lines [the Green Line] was not an apartheid society but claiming that he only meant "the West Bank" [Judea-Samaria], allegedly occupied by Israel.

We are not now going to go into the true international law applied to Judea-Samaria. Our subject is how the PA refuted the apartheid lie that is meant to support its demands.

How did the Palestinian Authority refute Carter's lie? The PA recently warned Arabs in the PA zones not to shop in Israeli-owned supermarkets in Judea-Samaria. They should boycott those supermarkets, the PA economy minister demanded. He added that the PA knew just who was shopping in those supermarkets, which entails a warning of PA retribution for those who continue to shop in them. That means that Arabs living in the zones were shopping in Israeli-owned supermarkets in Judea-Samaria. The owner of the supermarkets in question, Rami Levy, was not excluding Arab customers, nor did he refuse to hire Arab employees. Many of the employees were and are Arabs. Arab customers were mingling with Jewish customers in these stores. Where is the apartheid?

PA warns Palestinian shoppers
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
07/05/2010
Rami Levy shoppers, we know who you are, says economy minister.

Palestinian Authority Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh warned Palestinians on Thursday against shopping at Rami Levy supermarkets in the West Bank.

Thousands of Palestinians converge every day on the Rami Levy supermarkets at Sha’ar Binyamin and Mishor Adumim, the only two branches in the West Bank. The two stores also employ dozens of Palestinians.

This was the first threat of its kind issued by the PA against Palestinians who visited the Israeli supermarkets. . . .

Abu Libdeh said in an interview with the local Al-Watan TV station that the PA knew the names of individuals and families who shop in the Rami Levy stores.

He condemned the phenomenon of Palestinians buying goods at the Israeli supermarkets in the West Bank as a “big disgrace.”

Abu Libdeh said the PA was serious in implementing the decision to boycott settlement-made goods. Nevertheless, he denied that the boycott was politically motivated or had anything to do with the resumption of indirect negotiations between the PA and Israel.

The boycott was intended to “cleanse” the Palestinian market of settlement products and boost Palestinians’ confidence in their national products, he said.
- - - - - - - -end of JPost article May 7, 2010 - - - - - - - - - - -

The background of the stores' owner, Rami Levy, is also noteworthy.

This was the first threat of its kind issued by the PA against Palestinians who visited the Israeli supermarkets, which are named after their founder.

Levy, who was born in a tin shack in Jerusalem’s Nahlaot neighborhood in 1955, founded the company in 1976. He has never lived in a settlement.

The supermarket chain has 16 branches all over the country.

This shows that hardwork and ingenuity can lead to success in Israel, although I have yet to find my pot of gold. Anyhow, Rami Levy's story is one of rags to riches.

Another lesson of this episode is that Arabs have the wherewithal to shop in a supermarket. They are not living on the verge of starvation eating a daily crust of bread provided by the UNRWA or some other Western-run charity. Of course, both Jews and Arabs are looking for the best price that they can get for a good product. That's how Levy built his stores' reputation. Low prices, wide variety [his stores are very large supermarkets], and satisfactory quality.

Jerusalem Post story on PA refutation of the apartheid big lie [here]
Here is a post on the Muqata blog with more photos [here]

Tel Aviv Gay Murders a Provocation for the Sake of False "Peace"

Last night, 1 August 2009, a

black-clad, masked gunman stormed into the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association building and opened fire in a basement room where gay teenagers were holding a weekly support group.
. . . Witnesses said the gunman entered the center at around 11 P.M. and opened fire in all directions [HaArets, Internet 2 Aug 2009]
The man then holstered his pistol and fled the scene on foot into the busy streets of Tel Aviv, Rosenfeld said. [AP, 2 August 2009]

This murderous shooting was performed by a professional killer. He did not shout slogans or leave any message or any sign of who he was or whom he represented. He did not state a moral or ideological position in regard to homosexuality. He simply came, did his dirty and deadly business and got away. The various witnesses quoted did not mention any ideological, political, moral, or religious message uttered, stated or left behind in written form by the murderer. It appears that the hit man had a job which he did quickly and efficiently. And he got away quickly too. Not being caught was of utmost importance. The crime was executed in a professional manner. It was carefully planned beforehand. How the killer would escape was carefully considered.

The next question is Why. A number of haredi politicians had expressed condemnation of homosexuals and their sexual orientation. Several years ago, a young haredi bought a knife and lightly stabbed 3 participants in a gay parade in Jerusalem. This was the most serious act of anti-gay violence reported by HaArets in its background article for the present attack. The perpetrator in Jerusalem appears to have been a religious fanatic, a hothead, in direct contrast to the murderer who acted last night. Further, in regard to Haredim, their murder rate is low and often those who do the most shouting, who make the most noise, are not at all involved in a crime that seems to result from their agitation. On the other hand, we know that some factions of Haredim readily riot over a number of causes. Recently, we have had Haredi riots in Jerusalem over a public parking lot being kept open on the Sabbath and over a mother from the Toldot Aharon [nearly identical to Neturey Qarta] faction of Haredim being accused and jailed for starving one of her own children. Haredi young men like to riot, it seems, and for many of the same motives that other young men riot: a release of the sexual tension that marks young men, a proof of manhood, a challenge to what they may consider illegitimate authority, etc. Anyhow, how many young men don't like a good fight, especially if there isn't much danger of actually getting killed? Indeed, several years ago Haredi riots took place in Jerusalem over several nights against a planned gay parade. But there is a very great distance between acting out hatred of gays in riots in Jerusalem against the police --or between a hothead's stabbing parade participants-- and sending a trained, professional assassin to Tel Aviv to perform a murder in a club for gay youth. The murderer is most unlikely to have been a Haredi man or to have been sent by any Haredi party or organization.

This conclusion is not based on the official condemnations of the murder by Shas Party spokesmen and officials --which are quoted in the HaArets article linked to here-- but on our knowledge of the past behavior of the Haredi community, and its various and sundry factions, and on our personal acquaintance with many Haredim.

Well, if the deed was not performed by or in behalf of Haredim, then who was behind the crime? Here we fall back on the cui bono principle. This means, who benefitted from the crime or any other act.

The anti-national Israeli journalist, Aluf Benn of HaArets, complained in the NYTimes that Obama was widely perceived as hostile by Israelis.

A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month [June] indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. [Aluf Benn, NYT, 27 July 2009]

In contrast, prime minister Netanyahu is favorably perceived by Israelis.

Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure [by the Obama gang]. . . So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. [Aluf Benn, NYTimes, 7-27-2009]

What's worse, even the anti-national so-called "Left" in Israel, usually ready to be manipulated by and do the bidding of Washington and its EuroJudeophobic allies [the EU] were not jumping on Obama's manic "anti-settlement" bandwagon, which Aluf Benn had earlier discussed in an opinion column in HaArets:

Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze [Aluf Benn, NYTimes 7-27-2009]

So something had to be done to make Israelis, or at least some Israelis, at least the amorphous so-called "Left," so often ready to demonstrate for all sorts of causes, receptive to the Obama administration's racist demand on Israel to "freeze settlements." This demand is itself an assault on freedom, on a value that the gay movement evokes in behalf of tolerance for itself. Maybe some more thougtful gays did perceive the anti-freedom, anti-human rights, nature of the demand. In particular, the Obama Administration seeks to vitiate the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria or even the parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, even though Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1853, and that means in the Old City, in "east Jerusalem," which in 1853 was the whole city.

Aluf Benn indicates that for Obama's policy to win over any substantial part of the Israeli public, an effort would have to be made to divide the Israelis. This might be done by creating a divisive issue, even a spurious issue. The murders of last night were indeed a divisive issue. The Meretz member of Knesset Nitsan Horovits, with typical lack of thought, described the murder as a "blind attack," a hate crime. Tsipi Livni, the mentally challenged leader of the Kadima Party ranted about "hatred. . . intolerance, incitement and violence." Labor MK, Sheli Yakhimovich, a former radio journalist, thoughtlessly attributed the crime to "ongoing incitement." [quotes from Horowitz, Livni, & Yakhimovich from HaArets, here]. They were all insinuating that Shas was guilty, because the party had indeed opposed granting certain rights to homosexuals, etc. So if the attack was meant as a provocation, it has succeeded. It has divided public opinion and provoked a militant movement and demonstrations against the unknown perpetrators, sometimes identified with Shas:

Within a couple of hours of Saturday night's attack, hundreds of members of the city's gay and lesbian community gathered with placards and candles to protest the killings, while Shas was accused by some of inciting the attack.

"I warned in a column last year that Israel is a place which, on the one hand has liberal laws, but on the other does not attempt to counter homophobia," Danny Zak, a gay activist and journalist, told the Jerusalem Post during the demonstration. "A murder was waiting to happen," Zak added.

"The Shas party has the blood of two innocent kids on their hands," he said. "Shas has blamed gays for earthquakes and diseases. This is incitement, but no one is put on trial for it," he said. [Jerusalem Post, 2 August 2009][also see here]

So the "gay community" now has a cause and an available hate object, Shas, whom to blame --plausibly for some-- for somehow inciting the murders, although the murderer was obviously a trained, coldblooded professional. Many will forget that --as we said above-- those who make the most noise are unlikely to be the ones who actually carried out the murder. But the gay movement and the "Left" will no doubt demonstrate and raise the issue of the murders on all sorts of occasions.

The official condemnations by the prime minister, other ministers, other officials, and particularly Shas officials will most likely fall on deaf ears, at least among the more simple-minded among the gays and among the hotheaded haters of the present government on the "Left." The division among Israelis thus caused will harm the present government and its attempt to stand up to Obama's pressure. The murders are likely to end up benefitting those who hate Netanyahu and want to soften his resistance to the racist, anti-Jewish winds raging in Washington.

Reformed Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews

The Peace Process, peace of mind for antisemites

Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

By: Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel. But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere. And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

“On the other hand . . . ”?

Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.

At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding. If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.

The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present. Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.

Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery. “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.

According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation

Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews. In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.

Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.” He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?

“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.

Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax.

Rabbi Pomerantz' outcry from the heart is especially welcome since he is a Reform rabbi and many of his fellows in the Reform movement have actively taken the side of the Obama administration and the State Department in calling for Obama to put pressure on Israel to do theState Dept's bidding. I was recently informed by a friend, a trusted historical researcher in the United States, that the Ford Foundation made an agreement with some institutions of the Reformed Jewish movement to finance efforts by these bodies to work for a more "evenhanded" US policy towards Israel. What does this mean? Will Reform bodies lie on behalf of the Obama adminstration against Israel? This is shocking news, especially since funds from the Reform movement were used to organize the anti-Israel hate campaign at the Durban I meeting in Durban, South Africa in September 2001 [on this, see research articles by Edwin Black for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, JTA].

Another recent case is a statement by Reform rabbis calling on Obama to pressure Israel to evacuate so-called "illegal outposts." Perhaps these rabbis forget that even Jewish settlers are human beings. And human beings are living in these outposts. Are they really "illegal" or just unauthorized or just inconvenient for State Dept policy? Have these rabbis inquired of the inhabitants of the outposts just why they are there? Have they committed a moral crime of some sort or are they "obstacles to peace" as the Obama administration says. To be sure, the Bush administration said the same. It makes no difference. These claims are offensive. Obama said in his Cairo speech that

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli
settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines
efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Besides the bullying tone, Obama is making two false and offensive claims:
1-- that Israel ever agreed to stop all settlements. This is false. Indeed, the Obama administration is deliberately overlooking the agreement of the Bush administration to accept Jewish settlements in the main settlement blocs, where building would continue.
2-- that Jews living in Judea-Samaria are "obstacles to peace." In the Cairo speech, Obama claimed that building in settlements "undermines efforts to achieve peace." This is racism against Jews. This is also blaming Jews in advance for any future warfare. After all, if settlements or building in them "undermines peace," then continued building or continued habitation by Jews in them "undermines peace." So, by Obama and State Dept logic, settlers and any Israeli govt that allows settlements are undermining peace, and promoting a future war. That's a pretty clever verbal trick on Obama's part, fully justifying Rabbi Pomerantz's argument.

Moreover, it is not clear whether Obama is saying that all continued habitation by Jews in Judea-Samaria is illegitimate or only continued building of settlements and/or building in them. Either way the claim is racist and --furthermore-- has no foundation in international law. But slick politicians like Obama like to insinuate or suggest or imply notions that they cannot state explicitly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unfortunately, there is a minor historical error in the rabbi's appeal:
. . . this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die. . .
Actually, this statement of the purposes of jihad warfare ought to be amended to read: . . . demanded subjugated populations convert or die or pay tribute [Quran 9:29].
To be fair to Rabbi Pomerantz, there were times when Muslim armies did not give conquered and defeated kufar [unbelievers] the choice of paying tribute and simply offered them the choice of conversion or death.

Obama Affirms Evil, Sinister Anti-Jewish Racism in Cairo Speech

More Links Added at bottom 6-5-2009 & 7-20-2009

Obama's Cairo speech reaffirmed the long-standing anti-Jewish racism of US State Department policy by opposing and denying the Jewish right to live in parts of the ancient Jewish homeland -Judea & Samaria- recognized by the international community in a series of legal acts and decisions as parts of the Jewish National Home.

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

This is an evil, sinister position. It threatens the right of Jewish residence in all countries throughout the world. It ought to be condemned by decent people everywhere. Note that Obama used the word "legitimacy" rather than "legality." That is because the State Department is aware that the Jews have a legal right to live in those places, although these Judeophobic bigots don't want Jews in those places.

Again, bear in mind that Obama's position is not his own position particularly. John Foster Dulles back in the 1950s claimed that it was in the American interest to ally with the "staunchly anti-Communist" Arab/Muslim world [to use a term common at the time in media mouthpieces for the State Dept, such as Time and Life mags]. Dulles formed the Baghdad Pact for this purpose, an ostensibly anti-Soviet alliance that excluded Israel. The main stream media of the time praised Saudi Arabia as a "desert democracy" that was inimical to Communism.

What Obama is doing is promoting Dulles' old policy with a brown face, presumably making it less obviously Judeophobic, less imperialistic, more "leftist" and egalitarian, blah blah blah. In the 1950s, Dulles openly excluded Israel from his alliance with Arabs and Muslims, insinuating that Israel as a Jewish state was closer to Communists than the Arabs were.

Obama's speech acknowledges that

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.

But he does not acknowledge specifically that Arabs and other Muslims persecuted Jews "for centuries" -actually since Muhammad's time, 1400 years ago-- as mandated by the tenets of their religion in the Quran, the Hadith, Muslim jurisprudence and legal writings, etc. On this point, Dulles was more honest than Obama, acknowledging in Congressional committee testimony that Arab hatred of Jews went back to Muhammad.

Nor does Obama acknowledge that Arabs collaborated in the Holocaust, attributing the Judeophobia ["anti-Semitism"] that led to the Holocaust solely to Europe, overlooking the palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem who collaborated in the Holocaust, urging Arabs over Radio Berlin to "Kill Jews wherever you find them." Husseini was only one of the Arab and other Muslim Holocaust collaborators. Husseini lived in Berlin for most of WW2, surrounded by an entourage of members of the leading Palestinian Arab families, including Khalidis, relatives of Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi and Arab propagandist, Walid Khalidi, who is comfortably ensconced at Harvard.

What Obama is doing is giving an old policy a new face. After all, he claims to be a "liberal," whatever that means today. He is a Democrat, claiming sympathy for the poor and the working class, whereas Dulles was a Republican, frankly avowing his sympathy for Big Business. Obama is brown-skinned, Dulles was white-skinned. Yet, the policy toward Israel and the Arabs is the same, albeit Dulles was more honest about it.

There is a lot more to say about his praise of Islam, overlooking the big blemishes like the oppression of dhimmis, like slavery, like the belief in perpetual jihad war until the whole world is brought under Islamic law. His ascription of the Renaissance and Enlightenment to Islamic civilization is ridiculously and grossly exaggerated while the destruction of older civilizations by Islamic jihad wars goes unmentioned by him. No doubt Obama's speech will get much more analysis and others will likely take up the many facets of it that need analysis and criticism. [here is one analysis-critique & Daniel Pipes' view & Hugh Fitzgerald's take & Egyptian Sandmonkey's too & Michael Rubin's & Martin Peretz' & Raymond Ibrahim's & Melanie Philips' & Barry Rubin's & Caroline Glick's & Gerald Steinberg's & Efraim Zuroff's & Giorgio Israel (in Il Foglio in Italian) & Michael Young of Beirut] & Elizabeth Berney.
& Morton Klein's take added 7-23-2009 [Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America].

But the anti-Jewish Racism of Obama's hostility to Jews exercising their human and national rights by living in Judea-Samaria is what ought to be borne in mind at this time.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Just as a post-script, Obama is supposed to meet in Egypt with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who hold frankly Judeophobic views, and indeed are hostile to all non-Muslims. This is a sinister event that may mean some very horrid outcomes in the future.

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.

Obama vows to promote genocide process called "peace process"

What has happened in and to Israel since the Oslo Accords [9-1993] has demonstrated that it was a tragic mistake at best to try to make peace with the PLO. The number of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism has increased manifold since Oslo, fifteen years ago, compared with the fifteen preceding years. Jewish rights in the Land of Israel have been reduced and --in Judea-Samaria-- have been almost obliterated. The PLO has never changed its charter which vows to destroy Israel in several verbal formulations. Somehow Clinton was persuaded to accept the swindle of PLO charter changes which never occurred. Meanwhile, arch-terrorist arafat has died to be replaced by Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen and by the Hamas which is even franker in its genocidal aims than is the Fatah. There has not been anything going on worthy of being called a "peace process." Yet the diplomats continue to heave and churn in their nefarious efforts for the "peace process" cause. The electronic and print media, the schools from K to university level, the mosque preachers, in Judea-Samaria [Fatah-dominated] and Gaza [Hamas-dominated] continue to incite genocidal hatred of Jews, slanders against Jews medieval and modern from the Muslim Hadith to the Protocols and Hitlerite ravings. This mass murder incitement cannot but have an effect on future events, basically vitiating any hope for real peace. Yet the peace-processors churn on and on.

As expected, champion faker, Barack Obama, George Bush's true successor in the White House, has taken up the relay for genocide from Bush's administration. He assured Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen that the murder process must go on:

"Obama promised that he'll continue efforts to push the peace process forward in order to arrive at a two state solution," Erekat said. "He said he will work with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace, which is in the interest of both parties"

This was according to Abu Mazen's advisor Sa'eb Erikat, a propagandist trained in communications skills by US taxpayer funds supplied through the USAID working through the PASSIA. It is no wonder that zbig brzzzzzzki's protege hastens to support the "peace process." Of course, there is nothing peaceful about it. The only peace in the "peace process" is peace of mind for antisemites.

Those who doubt this should ask why the "peace process" includes Syria, the govt of which has slaughtered tens of thousands of its own citizens, suppresses freedom of expression, democracy, etc. , and also spreads Nazi-like lies against Jews [not only against Israel], such as the lie about Jewish ritual murder. Former Syrian "defense" minister Mustafa Tlas finds Jewish ritual murder in the 1840 Damascus Affair in which scores of Jews were tortured to force confessions. Tlas tortures his fellow Arab Syrians. Why wouldn't he do it to Jews? What kind of peace could ensue from a "peace" accord with these Arab Nazis?

The more important question perhaps is why Washington is so eager to build up Syria, knowing its many crimes in Syria itself, in Lebanon, its participation in terrorism against American troops in Iraq, and its sponsorship for genocidal anti-Jewish terrorists in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

Those who want to believe that Obama is not racist against Jews should ask him and his flunkeys two questions:

1-- Why has he never spoken out in favor of pardon or clemency for Jonathan Pollard? Doesn't Pollard have rights under the 8th Amendment to the US constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"? This is asked in view of the light sentences given to non-Jewish spies, including an Arab spying for Egypt, in the same period when Pollard was sentenced. Don't Jews have human rights, civil rights?

2- Why doesn't Obama defend the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza? If Blacks have rights to live wherever they like in America, why don't Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, part of the Land of Israel? Would Obama support exclusion of Jews from certain areas of the United States? If he doesn't support Jewish rights of residence in the Jewish homeland, why should he support them in the USA? Does Obama support the use of armed force by US Army and US marshals to enforce equal residence rights for Blacks in the USA [which has happened], why shouldn't Israel use its armed forces to support Jewish residence rights in the Land of Israel?

Now, if Obama and his fellow Democrats were really against Bush Jr, why didn't they challenge Bush Jr's policy against Jewish settlement and housing construction in Judea-Samaria???
In foreign policy Obama looks to be a more virulent, more destructive version of Bush.

Obama has many Judeophobic advisors. Melanie Philips and others have mentioned zbig, McPeak, Scowcroft, and so on. The least to be said about these advisors is that they are dominated by oldtimers from carter's harmful administration up through Clinton's. This belies of course obama's claim to represent Change, the New, the Innocent, the Untainted, the Uncorrupt ad nauseam.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

James Baker and US Foreign Policy towards Israel -- Part 4

Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, the Petro-Diplomatic Complex worked to undermine Israel in American public opinion. One way was to set up the American Friends of the Middle East, which enjoyed government funding. This group lobbied the Congress on behalf of pro-Arab policies, although it was probably illegal for a body supported by government funds [up to $400,000 per year] to lobby its own funder, the US government. I L Kenen points out that this subsidy was not ended until 1967 on account of a Congressional investigation of CIA operations [Kenen, Israel's Defense Line, pp 115-116]. The publications of the Arabian-American Oil Co. [ARAMCO] too, like ARAMCO World, also served to provide the Arabs with a favorable image in the United States. For instance, the barbarous kingdom with its cruel, bigoted medieval laws, based on Wahhabi Islam, was described as: "A Desert Democracy." Likewise, the National Geographic and publications of the Arab League offices in the USA also published pro-Saudi, pro-Arab propaganda. The Luce publications --Time and Life-- did the same, although inconsistently. For instance, after the Six Day War had raised Israel's prestige in the United States, the Luce publications were pro-Israel for a while in accord with public opinion.

Gurfinkiel writes that starting in the early 1960s with the Kennedy Administration, through the Johnson Administration, and into the Nixon Administration of the early 1970s,

Washington began a rapprochement with Jerusalem, . . . In the eyes of the oil men and their friends, the most powerful lobby in the country, this deviation could only be explained by the action of a "Jewish lobby" at least as powerful; a classic case of projection on the adversary of one's own behavior.
[Michel Gurfinkiel, "Rapport sur Baker," France-Israel Information, Oct-Nov-Dec 2006]

This is an important insight. The extremely powerful oil lobby that was able to arrange vast tax advantages for itself and its Arab allies, like application of the Foreign Tax Credit to oil payments to Saudi Arabia, among other tax favors, accused the Jewish lobby of being all-powerful. In fact, the paranoid loathing of a Jewish or pro-Israel lobby interfering in the plans of empires came to the surface in remarks by certain influential Britishers around the time of the reestablishment of Israel and in later years. For instance, various prominent British personalities, such as Dennis Brogan, an influential British political scientist, complained about the Jewish lobby in the United States interfering with British designs for the Land of Israel.

Gurfinkiel believes that the Israel-American partnership of the sixties and seventies had much to do with the Soviet alignment of important Arab states, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, and Libya. Furthermore, the OPEC states, the Arab members first and foremost, had greatly raised the price of crude oil. For this reason and on account of the hostile Arab attitude [including that of Saudi Arabia] in that 1973-74 period, some have claimed, the United States was contemplating seizing the Persian Gulf oil fields. Be that as it may, certainly many Americans were very angry at the Arab oil states for making life more expensive for Americans and the rest of the world. The greatest damage of the sharp rise in oil prices was no doubt to the world's very poorest countries which lacked valuable natural resources and were not exporting manufactured goods. Parenthetically, we should point out that apologists for the Arabs in that period, claimed that the sharp rise in oil prices was "good" for the Third World as a whole, that is, for the poor countries too. These apologists had no shame then just as today apologists for the Arabs are still shameless.

Gurfinkiel also points to the rise of fanatical Islam, as another factor encouraging an Israeli-American partnership. Nevertheless, the Pro-Arab lobby did not go away. The territorial situation created by the Six Day War gave new opportunities to pro-Arab propaganda.

The Pro-Arab Lobby Counter-Attacks
The Six Day War furnished it [the pro-Arab lobby] with a less cynical argument than the interest in oil alone.

During this conflict, the Jewish state had taken control of [not "occupied"] territories situated outside of the demarcation line [armistice line] established in 1949 at the end of the first Israel-Arab war (the Green Line). . . It had also occupied territories situated beyond the international borders of former mandatory Palestine: the Golan, Sinai. The pro-Arab lobby stated that the Arab and Muslim countries --or at least "the more moderate ones"-- would make peace with Israel when Israel had returned these conquests: "Territory for peace." The slogan was striking in its simplicity and its seeming equity. In fact, it made it possible to avoid the true questions: Why had the Arab countries refused the partition of Palestine in 1947? Why did they subsequently refuse to recognize Israel? Why did they multiply attacks on Israel [political attacks in international bodies, attacks by terrorist infiltrators, the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, etc] before 1967, when it did not occupy any territory beyond the Green Line? Why did they refuse after 1967 [after the Six Day War] an Israeli offer for comprehensive negotiations [a refusal embodied in the Three Noes of Khartoum]? How can Israel ensure its security in the long term against repeated aggressions without the strategic depth provided by the conquests [of the Six Day War]? [Gurfinkiel, ibid.]

Indeed, these are all important questions glossed over by the peace-mongers. The Arab states had refused to make peace with Israel when it was in its restricted frontiers of the 1949 armistice lines. Why would they make peace with Israel or keep a peace accord with Israel if Israel went back to those restricted, difficult to defend armistice lines? Why not consider Judea-Samaria or the West Bank area as a parallel --at least in military-strategic terms-- to the protective function of the Sudetenland for Czechoslovakia in 1938? As we know, the Czechs --under British and French pressure-- gave up the Sudetenland in late 1938, in the name of self-determination for the Sudeten Germans and of "peace." Just a few months later, in March 1939, the Germans took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hence, the Munich Pact for peace had resulted in the total subjugation of Czechoslovakia to the German Nazis and an improved strategic situtation for Germany in its plans to attack Poland later in 1939. In short, the Munich Pact for peace had made war more certain by improving the German strategic situation against Poland, thus facilitating a future attack on Poland. Combining the terms used then and those used nowadays, we may say that the appeasement movement or peace process of the 1930s reached its peak with the inception of World War Two in September 1939. By the way, in accord with the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939, both the Nazis and Soviet Communists invaded Poland from the west, north and south [the Germans] and from the east [the Soviets]. In the fall of 1939, the Communist USSR and Nazi Germany officially declared a joint Struggle for Peace. Is something like this grim scenario the purpose of today's "peace process"?

Note that Gurfinkiel avoids saying that Judea-Samaria were "occupied" by Israel in 1967. He is aware that these areas were part of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference in 1920, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922 and later by the United States in an accord with Britain. He knows that this status was not cancelled by the General Assembly partition recommendation of 29 November 1947.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on James Baker and US-Israel relations, Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, etc.