Mahmoud Abbas Tells European Union that He Wants All of Israel, including west of the Green Line

“We are keen on continuing the way of negotiations,” Abbas said. “We are determined to reunite our people and our land.” [here & here emph. added]

The above is what Mahmoud Abbas told Federica Mogherini, High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the European Union and the foreign ministers of the EU states on Monday this week [1-22-2018 & here] in Brussels.

This phrase "to reunite our people and our land" seems to be a euphemism for the Arabs' taking all of the State of Israel including the land that Israel held between 1948 and 1967. In other words, it is a masked refusal to accept Israel in any borders. Now, Abbas and the PLO as a whole and Hamas and the other Palestinian Arab terrorist and political groups believe that all of the Land of Israel belongs to them as well as to Islam. To confirm that consider the word "reunite." If something has to be reunited, that means it was once united but is no longer. They know that they already control part of "palestine" [= the Land of Israel roughly speaking]. And what they don't control must be reunited with what they already control, Abbas implies.
And reuniting "our people" means bringing the dispersed Palestinian Arabs living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere with the status of refugees, back together in one state comprising the whole land of Israel, probably to be ruled by the Fatah and other factions that run the zones of Judea-Samaria now under PA/PLO rule.

The PLO Charter by the way speaks of the whole land that they call "palestine" needing to be "liberated"  from Israel. Likewise the PLO's Declaration of a State of Palestine of November 1988. These were obviously  rejections of peace. But maybe Mogherini and her staff are too ignorant or too stupid or too insensitive to the subtle Arab use of rhetoric to understand Abbas' real meaning. If they did understand Abbas' meaning would they have encouraged him and said they support him on the Jerusalem issue? She said:

“I want to reassure President Abbas of the firm commitment of the European Union to the two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states,” Mogherini said during the meeting. [here & here]                                        

Let's leave aside the stupidity and impracticality of the notion of one city as the shared capital of two states. Did Mogherini understand that Abbas had just told her that he does NOT support the two-state solution, that he and those he represents are claiming the whole country?

Speaking of refugees, it is curious that the so-called "international community" --no doubt Mogherini is part of it-- seems to forget what happened in other situations where there were refugees on an ethnic basis. How is it that precisely the Europeans forgot that many Greeks were driven out of Anatolia, Turkey of today, and almost nobody in Europe but the Greeks themselves care about Greek rights and claims to the Smyrna [now Izmir] region from which most or nearly all Greeks were driven out? The total number of Greeks driven out is estimated at more than 1,100,000 while another 600,000 to one million were slaughtered in the period of 1914 to 1922 [some researchers put the numbers higher or lower]. Greece accepted more than one million refugees in the 1922-23 period and the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen negotiated an agreement between both Greece and Turkey to accept the principle of population exchange rather than go to war. As part of this agreement, Turkey agreed to let Greece expel some 400,000 Muslims living in northeastern Greece, Thrace, and take them in on Turkish territory. This was in exchange for the 1,200,000 or 1,500,000 Greeks that Ataturk and his army had already driven out of Anatolia, what is now Turkey.

For his services in the cause of mutual ethnic cleansing, Nansen received the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was not the end of Turkish-perpetrated ethnic cleansing. In 1955, while both Turkey and Greece were members of NATO, the Turkish government incited a pogrom in Istanbul, previously Constantinople (a Greek-speaking city before the Turkish conquest of 1453), that ended with the expulsion by the mob of tens of thousands of ethnically Greek Turkish citizens. The Turks got away with it. Somehow NATO let them get away with it.

How is it that the Europeans, including the wonderful folk at EU headquarters in Brussels, Mogherini and her staff, have forgotten that once upon  a time, a man got a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the principle of population exchange?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For more info on the expulsions of 1922-23, 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
What does Fatah, Abbas' faction, mean by "our land"?
It seems that they mean the whole country from the river to the sea, from the Jordan to the Med.
See here.
More EU hypocrisy related to covering up for Abbas [here], for his claims on the reasons for the Shoah.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other relevant articles:
Fiamma Nirenstein on Abbas' speech in Ramallah on 1-14-2018 [Italiano qui -English  here]

Dead Arabs Don't Matter to the World -- Unless Israel Killed Them

The hypocrisy of the major world powers, of those who dominate the international mass media, is long known. Khaled Abu Toameh reminds us once again of how cynical the world media, most of it Western, can be. Abu Toameh points out how international journalists and international "human rights" bodies --the ones that are always dragging their halos around-- customarily overlook Arab victims whose sufferings have nothing to do with Israel. The purpose is to smear and hurt Israel... If a particular case of suffering cannot be attributed to Israel then it is hardly worth writing about.
In line with this of course is that the Palestinian Arab suffering that is deemed worthy of attention is only that of Arabs in Judea-Samaria, not that of those in Syria to be sure, since that suffering cannot be blamed on Israel. Nor does the Palestinian Authority --Mahmoud Abbas' statelet on the way-- care about any of this. Even those who speak in the name of the Palestinian Arabs care little about the suffering of Palestinian Arabs that cannt be blamed on Israel.

Here are some highlishts of Abu Toameh's essay:

Nearly 3,500 Palestinians have been killed in Syria since 2011. But because these Palestinians were killed by Arabs, and not Israelis, this fact is not news in the mainstream media or of interest to "human rights" forums.                                                         
• International media outlets regularly report on the "water crisis" in Palestinian towns and villages, especially in the West Bank. This is a story that repeats itself almost every summer, when some foreign journalists set out to search for any story that reflects negatively on Israel. And there is nothing more comfortable than holding Israel responsible for the "water crisis" in the West Bank.                                                          
• But how many Western journalists have cared to inquire about the thirsty Palestinians of Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria? Does anyone in the international community know that this camp has been without water supply for more than 720 days? Or that the camp has been without electricity for the past three years?

• When Western journalists lavish time on Palestinians delayed at Israeli checkpoints, and ignore bombs dropped by the Syrian military on residential areas,  one might start to wonder [what] they are really about.

Since the issue of Israeli water supplies to Arabs in Judea-Samaria became a major topic for international news agencies and "human rights" agencies in the past few years, let's look at Abu Toameh's information. He explains that whether or not Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs specifically, are deprived of water is of little concern to them. Again, the issue is what can be blamed on Israel reasonably, or even unreasonably very often. 

International media outlets regularly report on the "water crisis" in Palestinian towns and villages, especially in the West Bank. This is a story that repeats itself almost every summer, when some foreign journalists set out to search for any story that reflects negatively on Israel. And there is nothing more comfortable than holding Israel responsible for the "water crisis" in the West Bank.

But how many Western journalists have cared to inquire about the thirsty Palestinians of Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria? Does anyone in the international community know that this camp has been without water supply for more than 720 days? Or that the camp has been without electricity for the past three years? Yarmouk, which is located only eight kilometers from the center of Damascus, is the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. That is, it was the largest camp. In June 2002, 112,000 Palestinians lived in Yarmouk. By the end of 2014, the camp population had been decimated to less than 20,000. Medical sources say many of the residents of the camp are suffering from a host of diseases.

Just bear in mind that there is no reason to rely on the international media or the self-styled "human rights" agencies.

Mahmoud Abbas Lies Big at Euro Parliament - Then Retracts Quietly

The story about Abbas' Big Lie, Big Blood Libel against Jews at the European Union parliament last week is too big to let it be forgotten. Of course Abbas and other PLO/PA spokespersons --think of Sa'eb Erikat, Hanan Ashrawi, Diana Buttu, etc-- lie constantly but not usually at high profile venues like the European Parliament of the EU, like Mahmoud Abbas did last week. The lie was so big --Jews wanted to poison Arab wells (a lie out of the Middle Ages)-- so outrageous because it was groundless, in that way typical of PLO/PA lies, yet delivered before a high profile body like the European Parliament, that it drew widespread denials and condemnations. Abbas still lied to be sure in his retraction about where the lie originated, apparently within his own PLO/PA rather than in "media reports" as he claimed in his retraction.

Even an Arab correspondent for the New York Times, Diaa Hadid, exposed the lie (New York Times, 24 June 2016), not to mention pro-PLO/PA bodies like JStreet and "Human Rights Watch," so Abbas was put in a position where it was more advantageous for him to retract the lie than to keep on supporting it.
The IsraellyCool Blog did a good job on presenting this affair and I now quote from them:

Following the uproar in the wake of his water blood libel to the EU parliament – which even included a NY Times report by Diaa Hadid decrying it (but not from the EU parliament itself, which applauded him after the speech) – PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO has retracted it.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday morning retracted accusations he made days prior about Israeli rabbis calling for the poisoning of Palestinian wells.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, which Abbas chairs, issued the retraction after the PA president made the unsubstantiated charge in an address Thursday to the European Parliament.

The comments prompted a harsh condemnation from Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accusing Abbas of propagating blood libel, referring to anti-Semitic allegations against Jews that arose in the Middle Ages.

The PLO’s statement Saturday said that Abbas “rejected all claims that accuse him and the Palestinian people of offending the Jewish religion.

“After it has become evident that thealleged statements by a rabbi on poisoning Palestinian wells, which were reported by various media outlets, are baseless, President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world,” the statement read.

The retraction also added that Abbas condemned all accusations against him of anti-Semitism.

Abbas’s remarks to the European Parliament did not appear on the official transcript issued by his office, suggesting he may have spoken off the cuff as he condemned Israeli actions against Palestinians amid stalled peace talks.

“Only a week ago, a number of rabbis in Israel announced, and made a clear announcement, demanding that their government poison the water to kill the Palestinians,” Abbas said, in what appeared to be an invocation of a widely debunked media report that recalled the medieval anti-Semitic libel.

“Isn’t that clear incitement to commit mass killings against the Palestinian people?”

Abbas, who received a standing ovation from EU lawmakers after his speech, gave no source for his information — and there has been no evidence over the past week of any call by Israeli rabbis to poison Palestinian water.

Israel said in the statement that it “awaits the day when Abu Mazen (Abbas) will stop spreading lies and be involved in incitement. Until then, Israel will continue to protect itself from the Palestinian incitement which generates acts of terror.” [Diaa Hadid, NYT 6 June 2016]

But here’s the deal. Even this retraction is dishonest.

As I posted last week, the blood libel seems to have originated with the PLO itself, being first published by the PLO’s National Bureau for the Defense of the Land and to Resist the Settlements on June 16th – days before it appeared in other news outlets. So when the PLO retraction blames it on “various media outlets,” they are deliberately and dishonestly hiding the fact they were the ones who started it, these media outlets merely parroting the PLO story.

Not only that, but as I noted (and I believe I was the only one to notice this), Abbas did not merely parrot this blood libel from days before but he embellished it. The original blood libel mention one Rabbi – the non-existent Rabbi Shlomo Mlma – issuing an ‘advisory opinion’ in which he allowed Jewish settlers to poison water in Palestinian villages and cities. But to the EU Parliament, Abbas mentioned “a number of rabbis” who demanded “their government poison the water to kill the Palestinians.” An even harsher accusation if that’s possible. Yet the retraction mentions only the earlier blood libel about the one rabbi.

In other words, this came from Abbas. His own PLO started the blood libel and he embellished on it, trying to make it sound even worse when he stood up in front of the EU Parliament.

As I posted yesterday about Palestine Post-gate, Abbas knows what he is doing when he lies or is otherwise being dishonest. He knows his audience. He knows once he puts out a particularly image or soundbite, so many people will lap it all up. He knows too that many will not even remember this retraction.

Abbas cannot be trusted when it comes to anything he says, including any so-called desire to reach a peaceful two-state solution.

Update: Even Dia Hadid of the NY Times acknowledgesthe PLO started the blood libel.

The Palestine Liberation Organization had initially published the allegation on a website run by one of its offices, and it spread through some regional news media outlets.

------ end of post by Israellycool---------
Addition by Eliyahu m'Tsiyon:
Diaa Hadid also pointed out in her article that

In October, Mr. Abbas erroneously accused Israeli forces of killing a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who had taken part in the stabbing of two Israelis. The boy had actually been wounded and later recovered.

 Anybody who still claims that Abbas is a reliable partner for peace is either a fool or a deliberate liar.
- - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATINGS
6-28-2016 Caroline Glick on Obama's poisoned candy offer of military aid [here]
6-26-2016 PM Netanyahu reacting to Abbas' retraction [Times of Israel, live blog]:

Netanyahu says Abbas against direct peace talks

Ahead of his trip to Rome to meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday slams PA President Mahmoud Abbas for spreading “abhorrent lies” against Israel.

Abbas last week falsely accused Israeli rabbis of urging the poisoning of Palestinian wells. He later retracted the remarks.

“Regarding the process with the Palestinians, I think that Abbas last week again proved to the entire world that he is not interested in direct negotiations with Israel,” says Netanyahu. “Worse, he also spread abhorrent lies about the State of Israel and Judaism. True, he quickly apologized, a halfhearted half-apology, but the things he said there were in keeping with what he has said about us on other occasions, including at the UN General Assembly. Therefore, I think that people can conclude from this who wants to advance peace and a peace process – and who does not.” [emph. added]

Abbas Smears Jews by Claiming Jews' feet Are Dirty

Mahmoud Abbas, alias Abu Mazen, the supposedly pro-peace darling of the EU, the White House, the State Department and an assortment of so-called "Leftists," has gone pretty far insulting Jews this time. He asserted in his frequently bigoted style:

. . . . the 'filthy feet' of Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount desecrate it. . .

A fuller quote has:

“Al-Aqsa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet. We won’t allow them to do so and we will do whatever we can to defend Jerusalem.” [WAFA, PA/PLO press agency]

 This claim of Jews having dirty or filthy feet actually  goes back to medieval Muslim notions and prejudices against Jews which have been upheld in places from Persia [Iran] to Morocco.

In referring to 'filthy feet', Abbas seemed to be quoting a hadith "You must clean your courtyards and do not follow in the footsteps of the Jews"  [here]

Given the extensive laws of cleanliness in the Jewish tradition, the ritual washing of hands before meals, the ritual bathing in the miqveh, etc, this slur from Muslim tradition is a smear reflecting deep prejudice.

Applied to any people but the Jews, such a slur would likely elicit wide disapproval. But since the EU and much of the rest of the West, is now in a deep hate-Israel mood, smears like Abbas' are conveniently overlooked.

The prejudice against Jews as unclean goes farther in the Shiite tradition than even in the Sunni tradition [Abbas is a Sunni]. Consider:

Jewish 'dirt'  was taken to its logical extreme in Sh'ia tradition, where the Jew was najas or impure: To wine and other spirits, dogs, swine, dead animals that were not ritually slaughtered, blood, excrement, and the milk of animals whose meat Muslims are not allowed to eat Shi’a jurists traditionally add dead bodies and non-believers. 

Thus Jews in Iran were not allowed to handle fruit and vegetables in the market, lest they contaminate them, and Jews were even known to have been executed in 19th century Persia for brushing up against Muslims in the rain, thus rendering them impure.
As recently as  2006, Mohamed Ali  Ramin, an adviser to president Ahmadinejad of Iran, said: "Jews are a dirty people. That is why one has accused them throughout history of spreading deadly diseases and plagues*." [here]

Abbas also added his approval to war and violent terrorist acts:

We welcome every drop of blood spilled                                                                  [referring especially to the riots on the Temple Mount]

Is it fair to say that Abbas is bloodthirsty?

Mahmud Abbas Starts New Anti-Israel Blood Libel

Mahmud Abbas and his "Palestinian Authority" started another blood libel smear against Israel. In the Middle  Ages in Europe Jews were sometimes accused of murdering a Christian, typically a boy before puberty,  to use his blood for ritual purposes. This is the ritual murder libel and such accusations often led to mob violence against Jews. Muslims traditionally didn't need such elaborate accusations to hate Jews --or Christians for that matter-- or to take to violence against them. Non-Muslims in Muslim states, the dhimmis, were not allowed to cast any doubt on the Muslim religion or to defy Muslim rule. The mere charge of blasphemy is enough to incite Muslims to kill kufar [= unbelievers]. We see that still today Muslims in places like Pakistan still strike out at non-Muslims on grounds of blasphemy against Islam, even if the charge is false. Likewise the charge by Abbas that Jews who merely go up on the Temple Mount contaminate that holy place. The charge does not have to be murder or anything close. But Christian bigots needed a false charge of murder.

The "Palestinian Authority" ruled by Abu Mazen [Abbas] has been supplying its population with pretexts for murdering Jews for several months now.  Jews "contaminating" the Temple Mount by going up on it has been enough to incite violence against Jews, even murder of Jews. The Jews' mere presence on the Temple Mount is contaminating, Abbas says. But in order to bring Christians to support the PA/PLO, Abbas is now furnishing them with libels of murder by Jews. That is what happened after the PA official in charge of opposing Israel's anti-terrorist protection wall [a fence for most of its length] and of opposing Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria flew into a rage in a demonstration against the wall/fence and then had a heart attack. Israeli soldiers were charged with killing him by beating him with a rifle butt or hitting with tear gas cannisters or using tear gas that he inhaled. Even silly Cathy Ashton's silly replacement as foreign affairs commissioner on the European Commission, Signora Federica Mogherini, demanded an investigation of the death of this PA official Ziyad Abu `Ayn.

Who is Ziyad Abu `Ayn? He is a convicted terrorist who back in 1979 placed a bomb in the marketplace in Tiberias, Israel, killing two Jewish children. Now over fifty years old, Abu `Ayn was a PA official in charge up till now the PA official in charge of opposing Jews moving into Judea-Samaria and of opposing the anti-terrorist wall/fence. He was reported in HaArets to have had hypertension, a condition which predisposes people to have heart attacks. And he was seen at one point clutching his chest after collapsing. That too is a sign of heart disease.

Abu `Ayn was not killed by Israeli forces. He was not beaten by Israeli forces, although he was clearly trying to provoke them. And he did not die from tear gas inhalation, which in any case is almost impossible when tear gas is used out of doors.

Here is the testimony of Ro'i Sharon, an Israeli reporter for Channel 10, a station usually favoring the "peace process". The testimony was heard on Channel 10 TV by the blogger at My Right Word:

Abu Ein collapsed some 5 minutes after the incident [when demonstrators and border guards were shoving each other] and after an hour, the hospital announced his death.  He wasn't choked [Sharon was standing next to him at the moment of the tiff] but was pushed and it was over in a few seconds. He even was interviewed for a TV station.  No rifle butts or such were employed. No rocks were thrown. There was a confrontation line, shouting, a few tear gas grenades tossed at the beginning but the incident happened afterwards. Sharon said it was a very low-key demo.

Note that no other demonstrator complained about the gas. [here]
http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2014/12/the-blue-glove-and-ziad-abu-ein.html

Here is more testimony, this time from a British TV news reporter:

A British television news reporter has revealed that Palestinian demonstrators near the West Bank village of Turmusaya prevented an Israeli medic from providing aid to a Palestinian Authority official who collapsed after he shoved and verbally abused Israeli officers on the scene.
In a live report for the UK’s Sky News broadcaster, Middle East correspondent Tom Rayner reported that Ziad Abu Ein, a convicted terrorist who was appointed by the PA to organize campaigns against Jewish settlements in the West Bank, was lying on the ground “unconscious” after the clash – although separate footage shot by Kremlin broadcaster RT displayed Abu Ein conscious and sitting up after his altercation with the IDF officers.
“When he’s on the floor, an Israeli medic does come up to him, she tries to clear an area around him, but Palestinians pick him up and take him straight to a vehicle,” Rayner said, in footage viewed by The Algemeiner. The medic was “not able to deliver any first aid,” Rayner continued, and Abu Ein was “declared dead when he got to a hospital in Ramallah.”
As The Algemeiner reported today, Rayner had earlier said on Twitter that “When Abu Ein is unconscious on ground, Israel medic attempts to assist, asks crowd to make space, Palestinians rush him to a vehicle instead.” Rayner also reported that Abu Ein repeatedly asked the Israeli officer he clashed with for his name, calling him a “dog.” [here]

Despite this testimony by journalists running counter to the PA's false narrative, Signora Mogherini of the European Commission chooses to smear Israel by insinuation of malevolently killing, even murdering, Ziyad Abu `Ayn. She called for an investigation of his death, despite the testimony against any foul play on Israel's part.  She described a "deteriorating situation on the ground." But her very expression of statement --which will be seen by Arabs as support for their cause-- is likely to encourage Arab violence, especially since she is echoing Mahmud Abbas, leader of the PA.

Obama Flunkey Leon Panetta Comes to Israel, Threatening Us with Lies

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came to Israel today to pressure Israel to make more concessions --which habitually evoke more Arab demands. Panetta's technique is to lie where he thinks it useful. Which is what Hilary and Bill Clinton do too. Not to mention Obama himself. Obama's recent speech at the UN was rather favorable to Israel, considering his past statements and positions on Israel issues. Carolyn Glick pointed out that he had merely propounded a moral equation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which for him was less hostile than past speeches on Israel. But the relatively short and sweet honeymoon is over.

Panetta came to Israel, warning/threatening Israel through reporters on his plane:

"It's pretty clear, at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that is what has happened. . . . The important thing there is to again reaffirm our strong security relationship with Israel, to make clear that we will protect their qualitative military edge. . . . As they take risks for peace, we will be able to provide the security that they will need in order to ensure that they can have the room hopefully to negotiate."

Panetta said he was confident Israel had maintained its military superiority in the region "but the question you have to ask is - is it enough to maintain an military edge if you are isolating yourself diplomatically?"

"Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." [msnbc/Reuters 10-2-2011]

Note that Panetta demands that Israel take "risks for peace." We have been there before. We have taken risks. Or several Israeli governments and prime ministers have taken risks, ostensibly on our behalf [such as the ill-fated Oslo Accords]. That ended in blood and tears. It resulted in mass murder by unsatisfied Arab terrorists. Meanwhile, Panetta does not demand any risks from the Arabs, from the Palestinian Authority.

But he is willing for the US to help Israel keep its "qualitative military edge". This acknowledges that Israel's ostensible peace partner, the Palestinian Authority is not and will not be trustworthy once it is transformed into a state, that it may not keep the peace. That is why making concessions to the PA in exchange for "peace" means taking "risks." Now since the PA/PLO cannot be trusted to keep the peace and it continues to indoctrinate crude but effective Judeophobic hate propaganda among its population, including school children --the future generation-- then there really is no reason to take risks. But Obama and traditional State Dept policy going back to the Republican secretary of state William Rogers in 1969, has proposed a "peace" with merely "insubstantial alterations" [Rogers' words] in the pre-1967 armistice lines [the 1949 lines]. Obama is continuing the policy of Richard Nixon's secretary of state, Rogers.

Of course, Panetta warns [= threatens] Israel that it is becoming "increasingly isolated." Later in his remarks he accuses Israel: "you are isolating yourself diplomatically." This is a threat that if Israel does not do as Obama/Panetta/HClinton demand, Israel will be "increasingly isolated," since the Obama administration will make sure of it. But it would be foolish to substitute momentary approval by great powers, including a USA guided by the State Dept and Obama's ilk, for tangible security assets, which is a wooden way of saying that we need territory in mountainous Judea-Samaria for our defense, in order to have the "secure. . . boundaries" stipulated in Security Council res. 242, but also because these areas contain the ancient heartland of the Jewish homeland plus most of the age-old traditional Jewish holy places and places of great importance in Jewish/Israeli history, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Herod's palace at Herodion east of Bethlehem, southeast of Jerusalem, etc. Panetta, Obama, Hilary & Bill Clinton and Co. seem not to know that all of Judea-Samaria were part of the internationally designated Jewish National Home established in international law about 90 years ago and never revoked.
A peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority allowing it to set up a state with the 1949 armistice lines as its borders would be an injustice to the Jews, not only jeopardizing their security but depriving them of their historical and religious heritage.

Israel is not necessarily becoming "increasingly isolated." Yes, Erdogan in Turkey doesn't like us and will not like us regardless of Israeli concessions to the Arabs or apologies to Turkey. We have always been "isolated" from the Arab states, when not at war with them. Yet Israel has good relations with a number of states in the Far East, Africa, South America, North America and even in Europe. Even the Arab states are now turning toward domestic and intra-Arab problems, not to mention the prospect of a nuclear Iran. However much they may detest Israel, it is not their priority concern. Despite arguments made by US diplomacy in fulfillment of the Baker-Hamilton [Iraq Study Group] Report recommendations, that the Arabs would not support action against a would-be nuclear Iran unless Israel gave the Palestinian Authority what it demanded, we have since learned from Wikileaks that a nuclear Iran was a greater concern for several important Arab govts than Israel was. So describing Israel as "increasingly isolated" was not a description of the real world but a threat of what would happen to Israel if it did not follow Obama/State Dept policy.

Panetta did utter a true statement. He said that "real security" needs both strong diplomacy and military power. This is true as a generalization. But applying Panetta's principle of Israeli "risks for peace" would not achieve "real security" but would lessen it.

The only thing positive in Panetta's remarks was that he states that a Middle East peace cannot be achieved through the UN but only through negotiations.
- - - - - - -
Panetta confirms pro-PA/PLO policy in talks in Ramallah [here]. Mahmud Abbas repeats demand for Israel to surrender before negotiations.
Panetta warns against unilateral attacks on Iran [here, contains a video of Panetta's remarks]. Does that mean that the USA under Obama doesn't want to disrupt or have anyone else disrupt, the Iranian nuclear bomb program? It probably does mean that which would be in line with previous policy.
In the video Panetta states: "I want to emphasize that there is a need and an opportunity for bold action on both sides to move towards a negotiated two state solution. There is no alternative to negotiations." "Bold action" usually means Israeli concessions. But here Panetta calls for "bold action on both sides." That may be a slight pro-Israel nuance. But in his visit to Ramallah, Panetta seemed to reaffirm support for the PLO/PA, as Saeb Erikat reported on the visit. Panetta also said that the Obama administration would not follow Congress in stopping funding of the PLO/PA over its unilateral endeavor to have a state recognized through the UN without negotiating with Israel. But if there is no funding cut off, how can Panetta and Obama bring about a PLO/PA return to direct negotiations with Israel? Will they adopt the PLO/PA's preconditions for negotiations as their own? These demands are, as is well known, a full, immediate stop to what the PLO/PA calls settlement activity, as well as accepting Obama's demand of May 19, 2011, that negotiations be based on the pre-1967 armistice lines with land swaps, which is essentially the 1969 Rogers Plan as an explicit demand.
More on Panetta in Israel [here]
Jonathan Tobin comments on Panetta's demand that Israel take "risks for peace." Tobin essentially agrees with me on this point [here].
Michael Rubin reports that the US State Dept gave Ahmadinejad's son and daughter-in-law visas to come to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting with Dad. This is relevant in view of Panetta's urging that no unilateral attack on Iran be undertaken by anyone, certainly not by Israel. It also shows the State Dept's role in being cordial to barbarians. [here]

abu mazen & erdogan --classic Muslim diplomacy updated to the 21st Century

UPDATINGS see at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Everyone has heard of how Abu Mazen, head of the sinister Fatah party/terrorist group and now of the Palestinian Authority, an outgrowth of the illegitimate Oslo Accords, is appealing to the UN to recognize another Arab state to be called "palestine," whereas there are already too many Arab states cluttering the map as it is. In appealing for recognition of a state without Israel's agreement, having refused to negotiate with Israel for three years, Abu Mazen is violating the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel, as well as UN SC resolution, 242. The OsloII Accords had stipulated that neither side was to change the status of the territories in dispute by unilateral action. Yet that is what Abu Mazen [= Mahmoud Abbas] is trying to do.

Likewise, Erdogan, Islamist prime minister of Turkey, is showing contempt for international law and even the UN. Erdogan has demanded an Israeli apology for killing nine Turkish jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara who had murderously attacked Israeli naval commandos boarding the ship while enforcing the rightful blockade of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, the UN Palmer Commission found that the blockade was right and proper and that the Turkish IHH jihadist terrorist group --to which the thugs belonged-- had received help and encouragement from its own govt. Erdogan disregards all that, demanding an Israeli apology for killing the thugs plus an end to the rightful blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza, plus pecuniary compensation for the victims' [the jihadists'] families. After release of the Palmer Report, Erdogan threatened to send Turkish warships to escort "humanitarian aid" ships on the way to Gaza, this time threatening to break the blockade by direct military force.

But Erdogan does not stop with Israel. He threatened Cyprus not to carry out explorations for oil and natural gas in its own exclusive maritime economic zone, justifying these threats by self-invented international law. Supposedly if Cyprus drilled for oil and gas, that would violate the rights [Note that term "rights" again used to justify threats of war!] of Turkish Cypriots in the Turkish occupation zone of northern Cyprus. So Turkey's dubiously legal occupation zone in northern Cyprus [covering about 35-40% of the island] becomes a pretext used to justify threats made on Cypriot drilling off the southern coast of the island!!

But the best comes last!! Turkey is now threatening the EU --those wonderful, world-scale peacemongers-- that if they allow fellow EU member, Cyprus, to assume the rotating EU presidency for three months in its turn, then Turkey will freeze relations [or maybe break relations --it's not clear] with the EU. This was reported by Anatolian News, the Turkish state news agency. He also issued another condition: that peace negotiations over Cyprus must be concluded by July 2012, when Cyprus is supposed to rise to the presidency. Otherwise Erdogan will freeze relations [see Il Giornale qui]. What this implies is that negotiations must be concluded to Erdogan's satisfaction. He must be satisfied with the resulting agreement --or else!! We don't know whether or not the corrupt EU, caught up in its own Judeophobia, as well as in the cobweb of a Eurabia of its own making, will withstand this ultimatum.

What we do see is how Erdogan's methods parallel Abu Mazen's. Abbas is the one who stopped negotiating with Israel. That occurred three years ago when the corrupt and pliable Olmert was prime minister. Yet Abu Mazen now blames Israel for the lack of negotiations, while he demands Israeli capitulation to his terms and conditions before negotiations even begin, whereas settlements, for instance, were supposed to be a final status issue left for final status negotiations, not for unilateral declaration of a state [which is indeed tantamount to a declaration of war]. Likewise, Erdogan basically demands that the EU force capitulation to his demands on the part of Cyprus, otherwise. . .

Abu Mazen now has Britain, France, and the EU's foreign affairs commissioner, the veddy Bwitish Catherine Ashton [Baroness Ashton no less!!] urging Israel to accept a "compromise" not contained in previous agreements, and promising the PLO/PA other goodies if he plays the good boy at the UN and doesn't ask for more than they are ready to give him at this time [maybe in six months. . . ]. Just this morning, 20 September 2011, the international media announced that Abu Mazen was ready to negotiate at any time with Netanyahu, thus responding to Netanyahu's previous proposal to meet with Abu Mazen in New York around the UN session and start negotiating there. However, Saeb Erikat, Abbas' spokesman and designated chief of negotiations for the PLO/PA, made it clear that Israel would have to accept at least two pre-conditions before Mahmud Abbas would meet him, 1) immediately freeze all settlement activity; 2) accept the so-called "67 borders" [= 1949-1967 armistice lines] as borders. Of course, it was agreed by the PLO/PA on several occasions that these two issues would be left for negotiations.

Note that the arbitrary, bullying style of Erdogan matches that of Mahmud Abbas who also violates signed agreements at will, makes extravagant demands for /observance of/adhesion to/ already concluded accords and/or chisels away at existing agreements in order to improve his position, and threatens war on suitable occasions, backs down if the prey/enemy becomes aroused, etc. [Erdogan backed down slightly on some of his threats]. This kind of behavior thus is not restricted to Turkey's Erdogan or to the PLO/PA's Abu Mazen. Rather it seems like a widespread pattern of Muslim diplomatic behavior. This is because many recent Arab and Muslim non-Arab leaders, like saddam hussein, Nasser, hafiz assad, arafat, erdogan, A-jad, Qadafi, Ibn Saud, share the notable traits of Rodomonte, an Arab character in the Italian epic poem, Orlando Furioso, and later in the operas Orlando Furioso [Vivaldi] & Orlando Paladino [Haydn]. He is full of braggadoccio [often called after him, rodomontade], he makes threats [think of Saddam hussein's "the sea will run red with American blood," --the "mother of all battles,"], he obeys no law --so it seems--, is totally arrogant, lawless, unrestrained, contemptuous of others, etc. He is described as a hyperbolic character, his deeds and actions and undertakings are hyperbolic. Erdogan fits or wants to fit into that mold.

Rodomonte: figlio di Alieno e re di Sargel nell’Algeria. . . . Rodomonte possiede doti fisiche sovrumane, è un personaggio iperbolico, e iperbolici sono i suoi gesti, le sue azioni, le sue imprese.

Again, these tactics are not Erdogan's or Abu Mazen's. They are Standard Operating Procedure for Muslim strong men. They demand concessions before negotiations. They demand what they had agreed not to demand. They cry "injustice", "aggression" and threaten, they set loose a shower of lies of all sorts, lies about history --current, medieval & modern-- lies affirming atrocities, including the most bizarre [that Israel gave aphrodisiac substances to Arab young women & teen age girls, etc]. They have to be bribed to get them to do what they had already agreed to do. Abu Mazen uses these same tactics with his approach to the UN and the associated demands. He violates the Oslo accords, refuses to negotiate and accuses Israel of refusing to negotiate. And many MSM organs, such as CNN [by its kevin flowers] and France24 go along with this crap [by allowing Mustafa Barghouti offer his smorgasbord of lies]. But this is SOP. Negotiating with Muslims/especially Arabs is always an exasperating exercise.

As the blogger J E Dyer points out, Erdogan's "objective is to make what Cyprus was going to do anyway -- and what is none of his business -- the subject of negotiation, because that gives Turkey an officially acknowledged veto. Think of it as leveraging himself into an imperial situation, by acquiring an ever-larger region over which he holds an acknowledged veto on one thing or another."
This is a pattern of diplomacy that I've noticed on the part not only of Erdogan and Abu Mazen, but of Iran and Pakistan and Indonesia, all Muslim states, although Hitler used some of these methods in the 1930s, before WW2 began. He too threatened war but promised peace if only -- if only he were given suitable bribes in the form of territory -- The Saarland, Sudetenland, Danzig, Memel, etc.
- - - - - - -

Other Views on PLO/PA UDI:
Previous post by Eliyahu m'Tsiyon [here& here&here]
Gov Rick Perry in the JPost [here]
Alan Baker & Dan Diker [here]
Rick Richman [here]
Evelyn Gordon [here]
Michael Rubin [here]
A summary in French reminding us of how the PLO/PA is violating prior agreements and commitments, & how EU member states will be violating an EU commitment if they vote for PLO/PA UDI. This is quoted from an open letter to the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, from the Marseille chapter of the pro-Israel group, Association France-Israel --General Koenig. French original follows the English translation:
"All the resolutions by international bodies (UN resolution 242 and those that reiterate its terms) and the treaties made between the parties in the framework of the Oslo accords refer the settlement of differences and the working out of solutions to negotiations between the parties. Moreover, the European Union --that includes France-- is a co-signatory and guarantor of the 1995 Interim Accords, called Oslo 2, which reaffirm the principle of negotiation between the parties and forbid unilateral initiatives like the one that the Palestinian officials in Ramallah now want to promote.

"It is up to you to work to ensure the fidelity of the European Union to its own signature."

Toutes les résolutions des instances internationales (la résolution 242 de l'ONU et celles qui reprennent les termes) et les traités passés entre les parties dans le cadre des accords d'Oslo renvoient le règlement des différends et l'élaboration de solutions à des négociations entre les parties. De plus, l'Union européenne, - elle implique la France -, est co-signataire et garante de l'application des Accords intérimaires de 1995, dits "Oslo 2", qui réaffirment ce principe de négociation entre les parties et prohibent les initiatives unilatérales comme celle que les responsables palestiniens de Ramallah veulent aujourd'hui promouvoir.

Il vous appartient d'œuvrer pour assurer la fidélité de l'Union européenne à sa propre signature.

The Iranian ambassador to Egypt says that Abu Mamzer's UDI gambit at the UN is a step toward destroying Israel [here][thanx Isreallycool].
9-27-2011 Erdogan's bodyguards attack UN guards [here] -- and a wonderful time was had by all.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Response to Obama's Sinister Pro-Arab Fascist Speech

UPDATED 6-9-2011 at bottom
The "peace" in "peace process"
stands for peace of mind for
antisemites.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Office issued the following statement following President Obama's sinister speech that denied Jewish human and civil rights:
- - - - - - - -
Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace.
Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.
- - - - - END- - - - -

Needless to say, I do not agree with the first sentence of the Prime Minister's Office's statement that Obama is committed to peace. Obama appears to be committed to undermining peace, encouraging Arab warmongers, and depriving Jews of human and civil rights.
- - - - - -
Daniel Pipes on the speech [here]. In case you're wondering, Pipes considers the speech and the policy that it contains to be "folly."
Omri Ceren, Robert Satloff, Aaron David Miller note that Obama's speech was a grave departure from past US policy on Israel-Arab peacemaking [here]
More Omri Ceren on "change" [here]
Charles Krauthammer on what is new & what old in Obama's allocution [here]
Robert Satloff on Obama's move closer to the Arab position [here]
Jackson Diehl on Obama's mistakes in his speech [here]
Evelyn Gordon on how Obama undermines Israel's negotiating ability and international status [here]
Jonathan Tobin explains that Obama's speech did not appease Arabs angry at his lack of support for Arab uprisings against their own tyrannical regimes, nor did it satisfy the never satisfied PLO/PA leadership, while undermining Israel [here]
Binyamin [Benjamin] Netanyahu's speech after meeting with President Obama [here]. Slightly more of the exchange between the two leaders [here].
Judith Klinghoffer believes that Obama's speech was based on demands from Saudi Arabia that he come out strongly on the Arab side in return for the Saudis bringing down the price of oil on the world market through increased production. The world market price of oil has come down in recent weeks.
Dore Gold on how Obama reversed past US official policy in favor of "defensible borders" for Israel [here]
Wall Street Journal on "The 1967 Line of Fire" [here]
David Bernstein gives some historical perspective on US promises to Israel [here]
Ronald Radosh describes tensions within the White House between now resigned "peace envoy" George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, and Obama himself which led to making Obama's speech less hostile than it otherwise would have been [here]
Yoram Ettinger on Obama's unrealistic understanding and/or ignorance about the Middle East [here]
Washington Times editorial on Obama breaking promises to Israel [here]
Prominent Democratic politicians, Jews and non-Jews, disagree intelligently with Obama's positions on Israel [here] as expressed in the speech of 5-19-2011.
Benny Avni's questions about Obama's speech [here]
Ari Shavit on the bad and the good in Obama's speech [here]
6-9-2011 Carlo Panella on Obama's speech. He upset both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and demonstrated his ignorance of the situation and the issues once again [qui]

Anti-Jewish Racism & Apartheid in the name of "Peace" -- Obama & Clinton back to FDR's Bad Old Days of Fostering the Holocaust

UPDATING 9-17-2010 see at bottom

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

Official Washington is in a tizzy. Jews who are simply not pliable enough actually believe that they have a right to live and build new homes in what the international community designated as the Jewish National Home [San Remo 1920; League of Nations 1922, etc].

The Administration of Palestine. . . shall facilitate Jewish immigration . . . and shall encourage . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands. . .
[League of Nations mandate, Article 6; 1922]

Needless to say, Britain reneged on its duties as Administrator of the Jewish National Home fairly quickly, making if difficult for Jews to immigrate into the country and to settle the land. This obstruction of Jewish exercise of Jewish rights culminated on the eve of the Holocaust with an official British statement, the 1939 "White Paper on Palestine," which severely limited Jewish immigration into the country, the internationally designated Jewish National Home, when Jews most urgently needed a home, a refuge. Further, Jews were forbidden by the British White Paper policy to buy real estate in most of the country. Thereby, Britain, the UK, was imposing an anti-Jewish apartheid policy on the country through Land Purchase Regulations promulgated in 1940, a year after the White Paper but in line with it. Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust and the Foreign Office's hostile policy towards Israel since then should be seen in that light. Incidentally, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ruled that the 1939 White Paper policy was a violation of the mandate. That didn't stop the British from applying the restrictions on Jewish rights embodied in the White Paper. So much for British respect for international law.

Now, Washington follows the old UK policy. It's bad enough that Washington wants Israel to share its scarce territory with a state [Palestinian Authority] that even now, in its embryonic stages incites murderous hatred of Jews, but Washington, particularly Hilary Clinton's State Department, is pressuring Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu not to allow Jews to resume building homes in Judea-Samaria even after the unjust 10-month moratorium expires shortly. In Sharm ash-Shaykh, Clinton and veteran facilitator of Arab terrorism, George Mitchell, pressed Israel to give in once again on this important issue of human rights. But Clinton, Mitchell and Obama don't give a damn about the human rights of Jews, just as an earlier American Liberal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, avoided trying to save Jews' lives during the Holocaust, thereby giving auxiliary support to British policy towards the Holocaust.

Now that the conference between Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Mubarak, King Abdullah [Plucky Little King #2] and Clinton has ended --supposedly to resume-- Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has come to Jerusalem to nag and pressure our leaders more in order to persuade them to divest Jews of human rights. In fact these are also national rights made into international law by the League of Nations mandate for a Jewish National Home [1922], in Article 6. So the United States under its present leadership works against the international law which recognized Jewish rights. Bear in mind that the Israeli people have suffered greatly from "peace processes" and "peace efforts" and "peace accords." Need we mention Oslo? Thousands of Israelis have been murdered and wounded since Oslo was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, seventeen years ago. The rate of deaths from Arab terrorism rose astronomically after Oslo, although lying shills for mass murder like the Norwegian Terje Larsen pretended that Oslo had benefited the Israeli people, falsely claiming that fewer Israelis had died from terrorism since Oslo.

As to Liberal American presidents, we don't really know what "liberal" means. Franklin Roosevelt was considered a Liberal. As said above, he did not try to save Jews from the Holocaust. Although American and British bomber aircraft reached the Auschwitz area in Poland to strike at military targets, they never tried to bomb the death camps in that region, to bomb the gas chambers or the crematoria -- or even the railroad tracks that led to the camps. The concern of those governments for the Holocaust and its victims is a pretense at best. In that period, Britain violated its international commitment to the Jews, to the Jewish National Home, by preventing Jewish refugees from finding refuge there. Britain went so far as to pressure governments in southern Europe to prevent Jewish refugees from embarking from their ports. This is not a matter of conjecture or interpretation. It is fact but not what is usually taught in schools and universities. Instead we hear the big lie, also propounded by the so-called "Left", that Britain favored the Jews and helped create the State of Israel. Shameless big lies coming forth from the mouths of academics, politicians, diplomats, and officials of so-called [misnamed] "non-governmental organizations." [see Notes below]

There is another case that shows how official Washington discriminates against Jews and Israel, doing so with the collaboration of fake "human rights" and "civil rights" groups. Jonathan Pollard has been in jail since 1985, for 25 years. Yes, he was a spy. Yet, his sentence is virtually a life sentence. He has never been given pardon or clemency. His sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Yet other spies were sentenced around the same time as Pollard, the Walker family, Christopher Boyce, Andrew Daulton Lee, an Egyptian spying for his country, and others. Their sentences were nearly all lighter than Pollard's, although Pollard had spied for a friendly country, not an enemy like the Soviet Union which Boyce, Lee and the Walkers had done. The Egyptian was sentenced to several years. Boyce and Lee are already out of jail. Pollard's sentence is a virtual lifetime sentence. The US Justice Department even broke --even violated-- a plea bargain agreement with Pollard, after he had confessed to spying as his part of the accord. The secretary of defense even intervened in the case, sending the judge a special letter that has never been disclosed to the public. Nevertheless, despite the unfair sentence and the unfair procedure, no self-designated "civil rights" group or "human rights" group has ever taken up the defense of Pollard's civil and human rights. Neither the American Civil Liberties Union, led by former US attorney general, Ramsey Clark [a sympathizer of Khomeini & Saddam Hussein -- yes, look it up], nor "Human Rights Watch" nor Amnesty International has ever made a public statement in favor of Pollard or complained of his mistreatment. Professor Eugene Narrett once inquired of Amnesty if they had taken a position on Pollard's case. They answered him that they had not since they felt it was not of interest --or some similar excuse to avoid defending Pollard's rights.

Of course, official Washington can get very humanitarian and very human rights conscious when it involves someone working for Washington. Consider the case of a Chinese-American sentenced to only eight years by China for spying on China's oil industry. This spy's name is Xue Feng.

US consular officials have visited Mr Xue nearly 30 times during his detention, and President Barack Obama raised the case with President Hu Jintao during a state visit to Beijing last November. The US ambassador to China, Jim M Huntsman Jr, was in the Beijing courtroom when the sentence was handed down Monday.
"Now that the Chinese legal system has ruled, I believe the time has come for Dr Xue, who has already been detained for two and a half years, to be released," Mr Huntsman said in a statement. I urge the Chinese authorities to take into account the long ordeal he has suffered and in the spirit of justice allow him to return home and be reunited with his family."
The statement said the US government was dismayed by the verdict and was concerned about both his right to due process under Chinese law and his well-being while in prison.
[International Herald-Tribune, 6 July 2010].

So US diplomats know how to talk the civil rights talk [as in the reference to "due process"] and play on the heartstrings with the hope that he can go back to his family. And Obama whom some regard as a Great Emancipator, intervened on Xue's behalf when in China on other business. But at eight years, even if added to the 2 1/2 years awaiting trial, Xue's sentence is nothing compared to Pollard's. But it seems that few in the United States care about Pollard. Those groups that one might naturally assume should be concerned for the unconstitutionality and cruelty and abuse of power in the Pollard case, have been silent. As said, not a peep from the ACLU or HRW or Amnesty.

So the Jews --both in Israel and the United States-- are much in the position of the Black slave Dred Scott. The US Supreme Court ruled in his case that:
"The negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, US Supreme Court decision, 1857]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
On the British diplomats trying to prevent Jewish refugees from escaping Europe, see:
William Perl, The Four Front War (New York: Crown 1979).
On US policy to do nothing to stop the Holocaust, see:
Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died (New York 1968).
David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews (New York: Pantheon 1984)

Also the website of the David Wyman Institute:
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/
Also authors such as Laurel Leff, Rafael Medoff, Monty Penkower, Ben Hecht, even "Leftist" journalists like Lawrence Lipton, Sidney Zion, Sol Stern and others.

On British pro-Holocaust policy, see books by Walter Z Laqueur, Martin Gilbert,William Perl, Bernard Wasserstein, William Ziff, and others plus previous posts here at Emet m'Tsiyon [& here].
UPDATE
Obama statement in favor of continued anti-Jewish apartheid policy in Judea-Samaria [here] & [here]
Also note that George Mitchell stressed the US government's desire to see the "settlement freeze" continue in his press conference after yesterday's conference at Sharm ash-Shaykh.
Hilary butts in with her obnoxious two cents in favor of denying Jewish rights: "Clinton told reporters that the U.S. wants the construction halt extended." [Bloomberg report here]
Khaled Abu Toameh's view of Abbas' policy on settlements [here & here].
Jewish efforts to pressure Obama against his pro-apartheid position [here]

UPDATING 9-17-2010 Obaminable gang supports apartheid against Israel at the UN [here]
10-5-2010 Caroline Glick asks whether Jews have civil rights [here]. I have written that Jews today, particularly Israelis, are in the position of Dred Scott, the Black American slave in whose case the US Supreme Court wrote: ". . . the negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" [see above]