Biden Administration Follows Communazi Example, Falsifies History

 The Biden Administration is bringing the USA in line with the Nazi and Communist regimes. It is falsifying history, specifically the history of the ancient Land of Israel, the land that Greeks and Romans called Judea. It is now viewing parts [or all?] of the ancient Land of Israel, Judea, as "palestine." It did so in a series of statements linked to the delivery to the "palestinian authority" of an ancient archeological finding. 

American and Palestinian officials gathered on Thursday at the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in Bethlehem for what was described as “the historic repatriation of a rare Palestinian cultural object.”

During the ceremony, the Department of Homeland Security’s investigative arm (Homeland Security Investigations) delivered a 2,700-year-old cosmetic spoon to the Palestinian Authority. [World Israel News, 1-7-2023 ]

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is no indication as to what makes this object culturally Palestinian. Yet the head of the U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs, George Noll, stated that his office “is proud to facilitate the return of this rare antiquity, an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony.” [ibid.]

Now when they use the words "repatriation" and "return", they are saying that somehow the so-called Palestinian Authority," a body set up under the Oslo Accords, is the legitimate owner of this ancient artifact. Now, according to the PA's minister of tourism, Rula Maayah, 

 “The artifact that is being delivered today is a cosmetic tool that was used to pour incense and it dates to the Assyrian civilization 700-800 BC.” [ibid.]

Hence, according  to the PA's own expert, the artifact is Assyrian, not specifically "palestinian." Yet the US Govt is handing over the object to the PA, claiming that it is somehow "palestinian." 

 So the US Govt is not only recognizing a "palestinian people" that emerged after the rise of the State of Israel, it is going along with this corrupt political entity in the latter's claim to represent a "palestinian people" that existed in ancient times. To be sure, not even the Quran and traditional Arab historians make that claim. The Quran recognizes Jewish ownership --as assigned by Allah-- in several Quranic verses. The respected Arab historian Ibn Khaldun also recognizes the Jewish population of and sovereignty over the land, as well as "Syria."

By recognizing the "palestinian people", itself a notion invented in the mid-20th century by British psychological warfare experts, the US Govt is canceling the ancient Israelite/Jewish people, which is however well-documented in ancient Greek & Latin writings as well as in Assyrian and other ancient texts. 

The US Govt is now collaborating with the "palestinian authority" in  doing what the Israeli scholar, David Bukay, described as 

"Rewriting the history of the Land of Israel by erasing Jewish history and replacing it with a fabricated Palestinian history [here] & [here ]

 This is shameful of course. But it is also highly dangerous, worthy of Communists and Nazis as I indicate above. It is genocidal towards Jews. After all, if Jews are erased from their own ancient history, then what right do they have to make any territorial claims in modern times? The so-called "indigenous" people of "palestine" have the right to take back their ancient land. 
The genocidal implications for Jews are obvious. Yet the Jewish leadership --both genuine and self-styled-- has not apparently realized the harm done to Jews by the fabrication of ancient history. It needs to be acknowledged that the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a silent partner of hitler in the Shoah. Roosevelt himself hated two peoples, Jews and Japanese. Japanese Americans were put into what were in fact concentration camps though not comparable in their functioning to the Nazi German camps. Yet there is great reason to doubt any decent motive in the action of the Biden administration  by handing ancient artifacts over to the PA.

Ancient Inscription Found Calling the Land of Israel IVDAEA [Judea]

The Roman and Greek name for the Land of Israel as a whole in the heyday of the Roman Empire was Judea, spelled in Latin IVDAEA.
[as a caution bear in mind that Latin has case endings for nouns so in cases other than the nominative case the name may be spelled other than IVDAEA. Also the V was pronounced like a U while I was pronounced like Y]. This Latin name for the Land of Israel was pronounced more like Yudaya. The word Judea apparently comes from the Aramaic word Yehudaya, meaning The Jews. Since Greek and Latin do not have a soft H sound, it was dropped when they uttered the Aramaic YeHudaya [יהודאיא] and the sound came out Yudaya, IVDAEA.

I have already shown here on Emet m'Tsion that the name Judea is found on inscriptions as well as on Roman coins, military diplomas [see one here], books, etc.

Here is an inscription found in 1961 at Caesarea  [also  Caesarea Maritima] on the coast of Israel, in ancient times Judea. The Roman name for Israel is Judea, IVDAEA, shows up on the stone inscription. Also appearing is the name Pontius Pilatus, who was the Roman governor of Judea [called a PRAEFECTVS in this inscription]. Pilatus appears in the New Testament story of Jesus, thus also confirming that part of the New Testament account.

TIBERIEVM

 [PO]NTIVS PILATVS

  [PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EAE]

In reading the inscription on the rock in the photo below, note that the Romans ran the words together, so that on the third line we see: ECTUSIVDA. Today of course we separate words. Thus we should read the inscription as [PRAEF]ECTUS IVDA[EAE].
The second and third line translate as Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea. Hence, we have confirmation of two facts: 1) the Roman/Latin name of the country was Judea; 2) the governor was Pontius Pilatus at a certain period.  The word Tiberieum refers to a building devoted to worship of the Emperor Tiberius [reigning 14-37]. So this large rock could have been part of or set up near to a temple devoted to the worship of Tiberius.




The photo is found here.

See more on this general subject here and here.

The Romans Saw Jerusalem as Part of Judea, that is as Jewish

Pliny the Elder was one of the greatest scholars of ancient Rome. His most famous work is the Natural History [Historia Naturalis. He wrote about Jerusalem in that book. Here is one many mentions of Jerusalem in it:

Jerusalem, by far the most famous city of the East, not merely of Judea.

Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbium Orientis, non Ivdaeae modo.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:70]

Here is another quote which refers to Machaerus [מכור], a Jewish mountain fortress east of the Dead Sea. Yes, Machaerus is east of the Dead Sea:

Machaerus, at one time next to Jerusalem the most important fortress in Judea.

Machaerus, secunda quondam arx Ivdaeae ab Hierosolymis.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:72]

Note the respect that Pliny the Elder, Gaius Plinius Secundus [23-79 CE], showed for Jerusalem and for Judea, and thus for the Jews. European attitudes toward the Jews have changed for the worse since then. Also note that in Pliny's time, the Romans called the country where Jerusalem was located Judea. It was not until the Roman defeat of the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt, about  56 years after the death of Pliny the Elder, that Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Provincia Ivdaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina. a name that evolved over the centuries into simply Palaestina. Bear in mind that Hadrian imposed the new name on the country as a punishment for its people, the Jews, who had bravely rebelled against the Roman Empire. Use of the name today is a kind of taking sides after the fact with the Roman imperialists. Hadrian likewise changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, bringing together his own clan or gens name, Aelius, with the name of the famous hill in Rome where the Senate was located [now the Campidoglio].
Another point, Judea was the Roman name for the land that the Jews called the Land of Israel.  A Jew was called Ivdaeus and Jews were Ivdaei.

It is also significant that in its original form, Syria Palaestina meant Palestinian Syria, with the word Palaestina being an adjective, whereas Judea was seen as part of Syria which was an old geographical conception of Greeks and Romans. As indicated, this changed over the centuries, with Palaestina --coming to be seen as a noun rather than as an adjective-- as the Roman name for the Land of Israel, which the Romans had earlier had called Judea [Ivdaea], the country's name in the heyday of the Empire. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan River --as we see from Machaerus [מכור] being east of the Dead Sea, a southern extension of the Jordan. Judea to be sure stretched much further west of the Jordan than east of the River. And today Israel only has its ancient lands that were to the west of the River.

This matter of ancient names of the country and the country in which Jerusalem was located is of course of great importance nowadays when Mahmoud Abbas, potentate of the Palestinian Authority, utilizes a false history of this country in order to deny Jewish rights in Jerusalem, in any part of Jerusalem. Yes, he denies Jewish rights in any part of the Holy City. Otherwise why would he object to President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which it has been since 1948, and whereas Trump is transferring the embassy for the time being to the present main consular building of the  USA consulate general in the city which is located in a place that Israel has held since 1948 and was not acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?
- - - - - - - - - -
For those who know the New Testament, the country is called Land of Israel in Matthew I:20-22. Elsewhere in the NT the country is called Judea, following the Roman usage. In some places, in the NT, Judea is used together with Samaria, following the narrower Jewish usage of the place name Judea which saw Judea as the continuation of the name Judah for the southern kingdom of the Israelites/Jews.

See a Roman document, an truly ancient document fairly well preserved for its age, that shows that ancient Rome called this country Judea or IVDAEA [here].

About the name Aelia Capitolina:
Aelia was still in use when the Arabs conquered the country. The Arabs retained pre-Arab place names in the conquered territories. Hence, they called Jerusalem at first Iliya, their pronunciation of Aelia (as proven by their coins, inter alia). Only a few hundred years after the conquest did they begin to use al-Quds and Bayt al-Maqdis which were copied from Jewish terms, haQodesh and Beyt haMiqdash, which originally referred to holiness and the Temple, and later were applied by Jews to the city of Jerusalem.

Edward Said Falsifies History -- But You're Not Surprised, are you?

Lying seems to have come naturally and comfortably to the late Professor Edward Said, a prof of comparative lit at Columbia University, who was somehow able, with the help of the organized American communications media, to change how Americans, especially would-be intellectuals saw Islam and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Here is one of his gems:

p56 ". . . . both [Zionism & Judaism] speak of Palestine as the land of Israel. . . . Zionism sees itself as redeeming the land whose natives [Said means the Arabs] have called it 'Palestine' for over a millenium." [emphasis added, see: Edward Said, Peace and Its Discontents (New York: Vintage Books 1995), p 56]

Said was a professor so he could get away with a Big Lie as long as he delivered it in a very Authoritative manner, allowing no contradiction or nuance. In fact, Jews have traditionally called the Land the Land of Israel. This usage appears in the Christian New Testament [Book of Matthew, chap. 2, vv. 20-22]. So Christians have been aware of the name Land of Israel since the New Testament circulated among them in the first centuries of the Common Era. Indeed, Said was right about what Jews called the Land, and this usage was maintained by Zionists. However, Jews were not the only ones to be aware of it. Christians who read the New Testament were too. The New Testament also calls the country Judea, which was the usual Greek and Roman/Latin name for the whole country up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt [approx 131-135 BCE]. So Said is not lying as to the name that Jews and Zionists used for the country -- Land of Israel. Watch out for the usage in the New Testament. In some places in the NT Judea refers to the whole country. This is the broad Greco-Latin usage. However, in some passages in the NT, the term "Judea and Samaria" is used. In these passages, Judea refers only to the south of the country, including Jerusalem. That is, the former kingdom of Judah. This is the narrow Jewish usage of the term Judea [and Judah], whereas  Greek and Latin writers used the broader meaning of the name.

His lie has to do with what the Arabs and Muslims in the country and beyond generally called it.  After the Crusades, the Mamluk and Ottoman Empires saw the country as an undefined, indistinct part of bilad ash-Sham [variously translated as Levant, Syria, Greater Syria]. The Muslim Arab majority did not call the land Palestine.

Few except for the rare scholars among them [and illiteracy was very high] even knew that once, before the Crusades, the Arab and Muslim rulers had used the term Filastin for the southern part --roughly speaking-- of the country, of the Land of Israel. Filastin did not mean the whole country but only what today we call southern Samaria, Judah [not Judea but Judah, the territory of the southern Israelite kingdom], and the southern and middle coastal plain and coast. The Arabs took the term Filastin from the Roman district of Palaestina Prima which had roughly speaking the same borders. Palaestina Secunda, northern Samaria, the Galilee and Golan as well as territory east of the Jordan River was called Urdunn by the early Arab conquerors.

Judea was in fact in Roman usage the name for --roughly speaking-- what the Jews called the Land of Israel. See an authentic Roman document, a metal military discharge certificate [called a diploma] which attests to a veteran of the Roman legions having served in Judea [IVDAEA in Latin]

Another of Said's lies was calling the Arabs in the country the "natives." The Jews were the indigenous population of the Land, inhabiting it long before the Arab invasion of the 7th century. The Jews were reduced by the Crusader massacres to a small fraction of the population but Jews have always lived in the country since ancient times, for more than 3000 years. So out of three assertions that Said makes in this short excerpt, two are false.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Historical sketch of the land  and its name [here]

Jewish exile from Jerusalem [here]

The usage of the name Judea or PROVINCIA IVDAEA by Rome [here]

My assertion that the Arabs generally did not call what is today Israel by the name "Palestine"  or "Filastin" is acknowledged by one of Said's professorial Arab friends, none other than Rashid al-Khalidi, who just so happens to be a good buddy of one Barack Hussein Obama, the previous president of the United States. Khalidi acknowledged this, for instance, in an article in the journal International Journal of Middle East Studies in the year 1988 or about then. I do not now have the exact citation but you can check the journal for the years 1988, 1987, and 1989.

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.

What Motivates Arabs & Muslims in the Struggle against Israel?

The Muslim religion has been a chief motivating factor for Arabs opposing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. The Ottoman Empire settled Europeans in Israel in the late 19th century and they were welcomed by the local Muslim Arabs. Why? Because they were Muslims. The Ottoman state, in which Arabs --including Palestinian Arabs-- held high posts was a Sunni Muslim state. When the European great powers at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 assigned Austria-Hungary to take over Bosnia --then as now dominated by the Muslim minority-- from the Ottoman state, many of the Bosnian Muslims did not want to remain in Bosnia that was coming under Austro-Hungarian --that is, infidel-- rule. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were resettled elsewhere in Ottoman territory, including a couple of thousand in Israel. They were welcomed as fellow Muslims, although they did not speak Arabic and many of them were blonds.

On the other hand, Jews were coming to Israel in the same period from many parts of the Jewish Diaspora, from Ukraine, Belarus and Rumania [an Ottoman possession up to 1878] as well as from Yemen, Morocco, Georgia, Bukhara, Iraq and so forth. Indeed, the Arab-Muslims were not so much opposed to Jews immigrating into the country in the 19th century, as they were to Jews having power, Jews not acting like inferior, oppressed and humiliated dhimmis. As long as Jewish immigrants knew their place --their inferior place-- as Jews, and paid the Islamically ordained head tax on non-Muslims, the jizya, they were treated with the usual contempt but not prevented from immigrating. However, the jizya and some of the other disabilities on dhimmis in Muslim law were abolished in the late 19th century due to European pressure on the Ottoman Empire. The local Muslim resentment of Jews increased years after abolition of the jizya and of the full dhimma [parts of the dhimma remained in effect] in the last decade of the century. Abolition of the dhimma was part of the reason for the resentment.

When the Arab League secretary general, Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, threatened Jews with war if a Jewish state were set up [October 1947], he spoke in terms of a jihad lasting scores of years, like the crusader wars and the Mongol invasions. He spoke in terms of Muslim volunteers --not only Arabs-- coming from far flung zones of the domain of Islam in order to fight the Jews. Why was this so?

Robert Reilly has explained the core motives for Muslim opposition to a Jewish state within any borders. Reilly attempts to:

elucidate the source of Arab intransigence in refusing to reach an accommodation with Israel short of the restoration of all that was lost in the repeated attempts to destroy it. In fact, even that restoration may not be enough. Anyone familiar with Al Manar (. . .) TV and the general propaganda against Israel throughout the Middle East might reasonably ask if there are any conditions under which the Arab world would allow Israel to continue to exist, other than by the strength of its own arms. And if not, why not? Organizations such as Hamas, quoted above, and Hezbollah repeatedly make clear that the real problem is the very existence of Israel. But why is this a problem, and is its nature political or religious and theological? If it is the former, a negotiated settlement may be possible. If it is the latter, this is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Which is it? The answers to these questions must be sought in the heart of Islamic revelation – in the Qur’an.

Islam says nothing about states, only peoples, and these it defines through religion. How does Islam regard Judaism? In Surah 5, Allah says that He established a Covenant with the Jews and gave them His revelation. The Jews possessed the Holy Land by virtue of this Covenant. But then the Qur’an cites the offence for which the Jews are forever cursed: “they changed my words.” The Jews changed God’s words; they changed His revelation. One can only appreciate how great and unforgivable this offence is by grasping the orthodox Muslim understanding that the Qur’an has co-existed eternally with God, in heaven, in Arabic, exactly as it exists today. Within this understanding of the Qur’an, the enormity of the Jewish offence becomes clear as a blasphemous act of colossal pride, for which they lost their right to the Holy Land.

Therefore, the Jewish claim to, and exercise of, sovereignty over the Holy Land and, indeed, sovereignty over some Muslims there, on the basis of Surah 5, is an incalculable offense and, for many Muslims, simply unacceptable. This is what drives the animus against Israel’s very existence. Until someone comes up with a new interpretation of Surah 5 that is widely accepted in the Muslim world, it is hard to have a great deal of hope for the sort of peace in the Middle East that we see in Europe.

If Jewish sovereignty in Israel is incompatible with the Qur’an, the rest becomes clear. Then one sees why, when Gaza was given the chance for self-rule, it was not used to display Palestinian capacity and desire for the rule of law and democratic constitutional government, but was turned into a weapons platform against Israel. It is why, at the 2000 Camp David summit, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of more than 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem, without even bothering to make a counter offer. By proffering a Palestinian state and substantial reparations, Israel was interested in ending the conflict. Arafat was interested in using the conflict to end Israel. Little has changed since then, including the recent Palestinian attempt to declare a state unilaterally.

Reilly contradicts the usual hokum about the Arab struggle against Israel being motivated by nationalist causes, hatred of "European colonialists" or "European intruders" [as if the Jews living in Europe were simply considered "Europeans" by the majority of Europeans], and so on. As I noted at the beginning, the Arab Muslims in the country welcomed the settlement of Europeans in the country provided that they were Muslims. The Ottoman Empire sometimes sent natives of Europe to govern parts of the country [not a distinct entity in Ottoman times]. One of these was Ahmad al-Jazzar Pasha. He was not liked but not because he was a native of Europe. So the colonialism charge against the Jews/Israelis is a red herring. Moreover, for many years about half of the Israeli Jewish population has been Oriental Jews, usually defined as Jews from Muslim countries. That didn't make a difference to Arab enemies of Israel. The Oriental Jews were fleeing Muslim lands where they had been oppressed as dhimmis for centuries. The charge of being "Europeans" is another red herring. Likewise, the charge of having a different skin color, of being "white" compared to the "non-white" Arabs made against the Jews. Indeed there is a broad range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs, and that includes the Ashkenazi Jews who also show a range of skin colors. Reilly has explained the Muslim religious motives which keep Arabs from recognizing and making peace with Israel [here]. That said, some Arabs of Muslim background have supported Israel on Quranic or other grounds. More on one of those Arabs in another post.

Spain drove the Jews out of Spain, now Spain's socialist govt wants to drive the people of Israel out of the Land of Israel

UPDATING 8-22-2011 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

More than 500 years ago, Spain didn't want the Jews in their country. Now it turns out that the Socialist govt of Spain doesn't want the Jews in their own country, in the Jews' country. That is, in Israel.

Guysen reports the statement of the Spanish foreign minister, one Trinidad Jiménez.

Ms Trinidad Jiménez, foreign minister of Spain,

expressed the wish that the meeting of European Union foreign affairs ministers, scheduled for next week, will move ahead the recognition of a Palestinian state. In an interview with the newspaper El Pais, she stated: "There is a feeling that now is the moment to do something, to give the Palestinians the hope that a state can become reality. We must give them a signal, for if we don't do so, that might generate great frustration among the Palestinians."

Espagne : il est temps de donner l'espoir d'un pays aux Palestiniens
La ministre espagnole des Affaires étrangères Trinidad Jimenez a fait le voeu que la réunion des ministres des Affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne, prévue la semaine prochaine fera progresser la reconnaissance d'un Etat palestinien. Dans une interview au journal El Païs, elle a affirmé : ''Il y a le sentiment que c'est le moment maintenant de faire quelque chose, de donner aux Palestiniens l'espoir qu'un Etat puisse devenir réalité. Nous devons leur donner un signal, car si nous ne le faisons pas, cela pourrait générer une grande frustration chez les Palestiniens''.
[Guysen News 8-21-2011]

So the EU and PLO/PA [here called "palestinians"] don't have to honor signed agreements with Israel. The EU doesn't have to respect its own "Quartet" guidelines for a settlement. The Jews don't deserve hope. The Jews don't deserve respect for their lives --note that this statement comes after murderous onslaughts by Arab/Muslim terrorists on Israel. International law regarding the conditions for determining that a state exists and that it deserves to be recognized as such are of no importance as the 21st century descendants of those who drove Jews out of Spain in 1492 repeat their ancestors' cruelty, this time not against Jews in Spain but against Jews in their own historic homeland. But the poor "palestinians", a people unknown to history, first appearing in the 1960s as a psychological warfare/cognitive warfare concept, have rights that the Jews, descended from ancient Israel, do not have. Maybe next week Madame Trinidad will tell us that the Jews ought to be punished for crucifying Jesus.
- - - - - - -
8-21-2011 German Press Agency [Deutsche Presse Agentur - DPA] also reports on the Spanish FM's statement, although mistakenly identifying her as a male. A person of any gender that you can imagine can be deadly and dangerous in the office of foreign minister.
8-22-2011 UPDATING -- The Spanish ambassador to Israel was summoned to the Israeli foreign ministry today for an explanation of Madame Jiménez's simplistic concern over not causing "frustration" to those Arabs now fashionably identified as "palestinians." The ambassador is said to have explained that his minister was not understood [Israel Radio in French & in El Pais in Spanish].
The original interview in El Pais & a report in Spanish of the Spanish FM's silly or disingenuous remarks about "hope" for Arabs, not for Jews [aqui & in El Pais aqui]. This is a way for the Eurohypocrites to encourage the Arabs to make war on Israel and slaughter our civilians. The British are veteran practitioners of these warmongering tricks and it seems that Spanish diplomats have learned them too.

Israel complains to Spain over FM's comment on a Palestinian state [Israel Radio web site]

"The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has voiced its objection to comments made by Spain's foreign minister that Madrid has decided to recognize a Palestinian state in ...The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has voiced its objection to comments made by Spain's foreign minister that Madrid has decided to recognize a Palestinian state in order to allow the Palestinian people to realize their dream.
"The Spanish ambassador to Israel was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where he was told by Deputy Director General for European Affairs, Naor Gilon, that the comments by the foreign minister were disappointing and surprising.
"The Spanish ambassador is said to have replied that the comments, in a Spanish newspaper interview, were not understood correctly, and that Spain has not yet decided how to vote when the United Naitons is expected to vote on a Palestinian state.
"The ambassador to Israel said that Spain would support such a resolution if it also stressed the need to return to the negotiating table and to ensure that Israel's security would be preserved in any agreement ."

Note Spain's disingenuous hypocrisy. Instead of telling the PLO/PA to negotiate for a state with Israel, it tells Israel and that the PLO/PA should negotiate after it is no longer necessary for them to negotiate in order to obtain a state. Recall that today's Socialist Spanish govt follows the same pro-Arab policy as Spain's fascist govt under Francisco Franco.

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]

Britain Fostered Arab-Jewish Conflict during the Mandatory Period

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Isaiah Friedman has published a new book which concludes that British policy in the Land of Israel during the mandatory period fostered Arab-Jewish conflict, including encouraging the pogrom in Jerusalem in April 1920:

In this myth-shattering study, Isaiah Friedman provides a new perspective on events in the Middle East during World War I and its aftermath. He shows that British officials in Cairo mistakenly assumed that the Arabs would rebel against Turkey and welcome the British as deliverers. Sharif (later king) Hussein did rebel, but not for nationalistic motives as is generally presented in historiography. Early in the war he simultaneously negotiated with the British and the Turks but, after discovering that the Turks intended to assassinate him, finally sided with the British. There was no Arab Revolt in the Fertile Crescent. It was mainly the soldiers of Britain, the Commonwealth, and India that overthrew the Ottoman rule, not the Arabs. Both T.E. Lawrence ('Lawrence of Arabia') and Sir Mark Sykes hoped to revive the Arab nation and build a new Middle East. They courted disappointment: the Arabs resented the encroachment of European Powers and longed for the return of the Turks. Emir Feisal too became an exponent of Pan-Arabism and a proponent of the 'United Syria' scheme. It was supported by the British Military Administration who wished thereby to eliminate the French from Syria. British officers were antagonistic to Zionism as well and were responsible for the anti-Jewish riots in Jerusalem in April 1920. During the twenties, unlike the Hussein family and their allies, the peasants (fellaheen), who constituted the majority of the Arab population in Palestine, were not inimical towards the Zionists. They maintained that 'progress and prosperity lie in the path of brotherhood' between Arabs and Jews and regarded Jewish immigration and settlement to be beneficial to the country. Friedman argues that, if properly handled, the Arab-Zionist conflict was not inevitable. The responsibility lay in the hands of the British administration of Palestine.
[above taken from here. The book is: British Pan-Arab Policy, 1915-1922]

A real anti-imperialist would expose how imperialist powers instigate conflicts between peoples. Isaiah Friedman does that. Most so-called "Middle East scholarship" does not do that. To the contrary, most "Middle East scholarship" today serves the Judeophobic purposes set as British imperial policy as far back as 1920. During the mandatory period, Arnold Toynbee, an official at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, was a prime exponent of Judeophobia and anti-Zionism. After Israel's independence, Toynbee's journal, International Affairs, published through the RIIA, favored articles whitewashing the Arabs' actions in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, as well as embellishing Arab conduct towards Jews and in general throughout history. He was a prime architect of the UK's anti-Zionist policy during the mandatory period. He also whitewashed Ottoman and Turkish [that is, Muslim] ethnic cleansing and massacre --genocide-- of Armenians before, during and after World War I, reversing an ostensibly British pro-Armenian policy that had lasted from the Congress of Berlin [1878] until well into WW I. By favoring Turks and other Muslim peoples over Armenians and other non-Muslim Middle Eastern peoples [such as Jews], British policy curiously converged with Bolshevik/Communist/Soviet policy from before WW I until the fall of the USSR, whereas Western Communists and Russian nationalists have continued their anti-Zionism, Judeophobia, Israelophobia till today, again strangely converging with British policy.

Their anti-Jewish policy led to the British 1939 "White Paper on Palestine" which severely restricted Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home [the Land of Israel] when the Jews most needed a home. That is, during the Holocaust. Britain's severely enforced restrictive immigration policy was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews. Another aspect of the policy was encouraging Arab attacks on Jews, both by Arabs in the country --as Friedman points out [see above]-- and by Arab states in the 1945-1949 period [comprising Israel's independence struggle and the war against the Arab states' invasion of the country].

Toynbee also expressed his Judeophobia in his world history, called A Study of History, which takes a very contemptuously anti-Jewish tone. Now, Toynbee's granddaughter, Polly Toynbee, is still blaring on the "hate the Jews" horn at the Israelophobic Guardian newspaper. Britain's anti-Israel policy continues, today focussing its venom on the State of Israel.

Friedman's book was published very recently and I have not had a chance to see it. However, I have read several articles by Friedman in the scholarly journals. I also heard him speak years ago and had a chance to ask him some questions on the topic of this book, the period around 1920 in the Land of Israel and British policy at that time toward that place. So, I recommend the book knowing Friedman's work as I do. I will try to get the book as soon as I can.

- - - - - - - -
On British instigation of the 1920 "Nebi Musa" pogrom in Jerusalem, see:
Richard Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary. Meinertzhagen was a British intelligence official for the Foreign Office in 1920, whereas he identifies UK army officers, such as Colonel Waters-Taylor, Ernest Richmond, and Ronald Storrs, as perpetrators of the anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist policy.
Also see William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, &
Horace Samuel, Revolt by Leave.
Note that H Samuel refers to the 1936-1939 "Arab Revolt" as a revolt that took place with the permission of the British authorities in the country.

On this also see,
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Quai at Smyrna" and the epigraph to Chapter II, both in the collection In Our Time
George Horton, The Blight of Asia
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
Samuel Katz, Days of Fire & Jabo
Pierre van Paassen, Forgotten Ally &
Days of Our Years
Albert Londres, Le Juif errant est arrive (circa 1930).

What Prime Minister Netanyahu Ought to Tell the UN General Assembly

PM Netanyahu ought to tell the world through the UN Assembly several things that he failed to mention in previous speeches.

1- The Jews have been historically oppressed, persecuted, exploited monetarily and humiliated over the centuries in both the West and the Arab-ruled lands.

2- Arabs collaborated in the Holocaust, most notably the chief Palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni].

3- The continuing dehumanization and demonization of Jews in most Arabs lands, in the broadcast and print media, in the schools, mosques, public discourse, are an obstacle to peace.

4- Likewise, the continuing dehumanization, etc. of Jews in some European lands [including EU states] is an obstacle to peace.

5- Poverty and lack of good drinking water and other failures of infrastructure in Gaza and the other Palestinian Authority zones are the fault of the PLO, PA, and Hamas which have not used the billions of dollars and euros received from international donors for constructive purposes
like water and sewage plants, housing, homes, hospitals, and the like. They prefer to use the money for funding terrorism and enriching the in crowd, the top leaders and their associates who are closest to the plate, to the pie pan.

6- Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria are grounded in historical reality of Jewish history, as well as being recognized by the League of Nations in 1922.

What Are the Issues Involved in the Racist Obamanoid Demand for a "Settlement Freeze"

UPDATING 7-3-2009 links added

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Obama and his whole morally corrupt and dishonest administration are calling for a "freeze" on Jews living in Judea-Samaria. This can be interpreted within a certain range of meanings. But this range is short and narrow. It is racist against Jews in any case. Here are some of the implications and issues involved in the "freeze" demand:

1 -- Jewish human rights. Where do the Jews have a right to live? Did the USA or UK or other major powers recognize Jewish human rights in the 1930s and 1940s? Do the USA, UK, EU powers and other Western and other powers want the Jews to live in ghettos??

2-- Jewish national rights. Do Jews have national rights in the Jews' historic homeland? In the Land of Israel including Judea-Samaria? Do we have rights to live in Tel Aviv but not Hebron? 200 years ago a few thousand Jews did live in Hebron but there was no Tel Aviv. Do the USA, UK, EU powers and other Western and other powers want the Jews to live in ghettos in their own homeland??

3-- Respect for agreements, accords and treaties made with Jews. The UK govt clearly violated the terms of the League of Nations "mandate for Palestine" to which the UK had committed itself, by issuing the 1939 "White Paper for Palestine." The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League found Britain in violation of its mandate on account of the White Paper. Now the obama administration scoffs at the accords made by Pres Bush with Israel while Sharon was PM just a few years ago.

4-- Does the denial of Jewish rights to inhabit Judea-Samaria threaten Jewish residency rights in other countries throughout the world, especially Western countries? The Western states as a whole did not allow Jewish refugees to take refuge in those countries before and during the Holocaust. Do they now want to get rid of the Jews as they did then? What does it mean that German chancellor Angela Merkel demands an end to settlement building? She also thinks that "a two-state solution" is "urgently needed."

5-- The US position on Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria is more subtle than the Euro and UK positions which falsely claim that the settlements are "illegal." The US holds that they are "obtacles to peace." In other words, Jews endanger peace by exercising and insisting on their rights. Since obama continues this established state dept position, his claim to be making changes in favor of human rights is a fake.

6-- Many writings and official statements from various sources, official and unofficial, state explicitly or imply that when Jews exercise the right of going to live in Judea-Samaria they are oppressing others.

7-- Do the powers that collaborated in the Holocaust, the US, UK, Russia, the major EU members, have the right to dictate "peace" terms to Jews that are really warmongering ultimatums??

8-- Will the "freeze" of settlements encourage Arab racism against Jews and/or racism against Jews elsewhere, in the West? In the UK of course? Will the "freeze" policy of the West encourage attitudes of ethno-religious supremacism among the Arabs, who do not need much encouragement anyhow?

9-- What does it mean when the US, UK, EU, and other world powers blame Israel in advance for the next war, whereas these powers, the West in particular, promote Arab war on Israel and Arab intransigeance in negotiations by the fact that they generously finance the anti-Israel NGOs, Fatah [in its palestinian authority guise], Hamas [through the PA and through the oil rich Arab oil states that are overpaid for oil deliberately by the USA, UK, & France?? The EU shamelessly finances anti-Israel, anti-Jewish propaganda through the fake "NGOs"???

If the Arabs really wanted to make peace, wouldn't the UK, EU, & USA try to prevent it? Wouldn't they stop the Arabs from making peace?

These are simply basic points and issues that will be broadened and elaborated on later.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

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

Background to Mumbai -- More than 1370 years of Arab & Muslim assaults on India

UPDATING 11-30-2008 at bottom

The Mumbai terrorist assault of the past few days can be added to previous Islamist atrocities, including the Mumbai commuter trains [2006], the London bus & subway bombings of 2005, the Madrid commuter train bombings [2004], and Bali and Istanbul and Baghdad [over and over], and last but not least, 9-11. Since the usual suspects and other culprits have already started the "root causes" game, that is, that the "real" cause is either Israel or Indian discrimination against Muslims or whatever, it is necessary to go back into history in order to see that Arab and other Muslim assaults on India go back to the earliest days of Islam. Andrew Bostom provides the historical perspective so often missing in the Mainstream Mass Media. An excerpt from Bostom's article follows below:

Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.

"Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake's graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the living history." [1] [quote from Sarkar]

Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and imposition of the Shari'a in historical Palestine. The current essay provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.

A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent

The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636—637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub—ud—din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India from 636—713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636—870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000— 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri's conquest of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]
[read more of this article in the American Thinker]
- - - - - - - - - - -

See more by Bostom on the ideological background of Judeophobia among Indian Muslims.
Srdja Trifkovic on the history of Arab & Islamic assaults on India.
Andrew Bostom's response to the philistine conventional media coverage of the Mumbai atrocity. He reviews much of the history of jihad in India and draws parallels with the oppression of Jews in the Land of Israel. Here are Bostom's comments on media coverage in a letter sent to me:

The "coverage" of the Mumbai massacre(s) has been an appalling spectacle of IGNORANCE, denial, and scapegoating--of the victims. If Hindus and Jews (and in the end, all potential non-Muslim victims of jihad) don't realize their shared predicament--targeting by jihad hatred-- after these events, then they never will, possibly hastening their separate destruction.

Destruction of these peoples means the end of civilization. The MSM seem quite comfortable with such an eventuality.
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda analysis, psychological warfare, etc.