France Foreign Ministry Falsifies International Law, Accusing the US of Violating It

In a fit of desperation at seeing their beloved "Palestinians" losing ground politically/diplomatically, the French Foreign Ministry, led by foreign minister Jean-Yves LeDrian accused the United States of violating international law by deciding to move its embassy to Jerusalem. It is very seldom that France or its NATO allies accuse the USA of violating international law. So this statement is remarkable for that reason, besides being a lie. See below the French statement:

France disapproves of the American decision to transfer the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as President Macron has reaffirmed on several occasions. This decision contravenes international law and in particular the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. [here]
La France désapprouve la décision américaine de transférer l’ambassade des Etats-Unis en Israël de Tel Aviv à Jérusalem, comme l’a rappelé à plusieurs reprises le président de la République. Cette décision contrevient au droit international et en particulier aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité et de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies. [ici]

Why is the French statement a lie? 
The San Remo Conference and the League of Nations assigned the Land of Israel, what the Europeans --although not the Arabs-- called "Palestine." as the Jewish National Home in 1920 and 1922 respectively. The Preamble to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922) specifically referred to the historical connection of the Jews with the Land:

Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine  and to the grounds for the reconstituting their national home in that country . . . .

Even after the exile from Jerusalem forced by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who changed the city's name to Aelia Capitolina, Jews returned to Jerusalem in late Roman times and after other periods when they had been expelled from the city and forbidden to live there. Jews have lived in Jerusalem continuously after the Crusades since the Mongol withdrawal from the city in 1260. In more recent times, Jews became the absolute majority of inhabitants of the Holy City in the middle of the nineteenth century, by 1853, if not before. In 1853, the Old City was the whole city. Hence the Jews were the majority then in the Old City and up to at least 1900.

Now the Quai d'Orsay [French foreign ministry] makes a legal argument supposedly based on international law. But Article 80 of the UN Charter, 1945, confirmed Jewish rights to the Land under the Jewish National Home principle previously adopted by San Remo and the League. Hence, in November 1947 when the UN General Assembly recommended accepting the partition plan for the country of the UNSCOP [UN Special Committee on Palestine], the existing legal status of the Land of Israel ["Palestine"] was that of the Jewish National Home. Since the UNSCOP Partition Plan was a recommendation, it was not law. In fact, the General Assembly can only make recommendations on political matters, according to the UN Charter. Therefore, subsequent General Assembly resolutions on the Land of Israel are no more law and no more binding than the UNSCOP plan. Therefore, the General Assembly resolutions that the Quai d'Orsay statement mention are not law and not at all binding. They are only recommendations.

Security Council resolutions are considered binding. However, the SC cannot legally revoke rights of peoples and states that it does not like or no longer approves. Especially when the people or state in question is already exercizing that right. The anti-Israel resolutions of the GA and SC of the past and future can rightly be seen as Judeophobia, anti-Jewish expressions. The France of today is the heir of Vichy France and has no right to lecture Israel on its rights no more than the Palestinian Arabs whose top leaders collaborated with Nazi Germany and in the Holocaust.

New Zealand's Mercenary Motives for Its UN Vote against Israel

See UPDATING at bottom of page

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Peace is the refuge of scoundrels. It is the excuse for all sorts of aggressive diplomatic moves and sometimes it is even the excuse for military attacks. In September 1939, after Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union, under Hitler and Stalin respectively had invaded Poland and while the ruins were still burning, both of these aggressor powers issued a joint statement that they were engaged in a "struggle for peace." Likewise, after the racist anti-Jewish vote at the Security Council, the White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes claimed that US abstention --effective support for the racist anti-Israel resolution, which he acknowledged-- was meant to help bring peace. Nothing new under the sun.

No doubt New Zealand would make that same claim, perhaps adding a devotion to justice. But maybe there were other motives for New Zealand's bigoted vote at the UN SC. Indeed, a New Zealand foreign policy expert explained the business advantages that New Zealand would receive on account of this mendacious pro-Arab vote. An item on the site of Radio New Zealand on 25 December 2016 tells us: 

New Zealand's role in promoting a UN Security Council resolution against Israel may have some economic payoff, a foreign policy analyst says.

The expert, one Steve Hoadley, reassures his countrymen that New Zealand will not suffer from any Israeli retaliation on account of the vote:

"New Zealand also trades with the Arab states, is about to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. There's huge profits being made to export lamb and other dairy products, other food products to the Arab states. If there was to be a big trade payoff, the calculations would be in favour of going with the Arab and the Muslim countries."  [emphasis added]

So there is big money to be made by New Zealand in trade with Arab and Muslim countries.
OK. Make your money but don't tell us you are acting in the name of peace and justice. Nevertheless, a commentator, also on Radio New Zealand, praises his country as a "peacemaker":

A few years ago, after the successful Bougainville peace talks, New Zealand imagined a role for itself as an international peace broker. It was a nice idea that turned out to be harder than it sounded, but it marked an increased New Zealand confidence to act independently, for good purpose.This week's action is a further brave step from New Zealand. It has no obvious ulterior motives, but instead seems an attempt to simply do the right thing. [emph. added; Phil Smith, Radio New Zealand, 24 December 2016]

It seems that our two commentators contradict each other. Was the vote made for mercenary benefit or for the sake of  ''peace" and the "right thing"? Maybe they would claim for both reasons and say that there is no contradiction. But New Zealand has been selling sheep, both already butchered and live --for certain Muslim festivals that require a sheep be slaughtered on the spot-- to the Arabs for many many years, and after all a country needs a market. Even a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers.

They say that New Zealand is very English, maybe more English than England itself is today. One thing that the New Zealanders brought with them from Europe is hypocrisy. A good European should never be without some egregious and saccharine sweet sanctimonious hypocrisy.
- - - - - - - - - - -

UPDATING
12-28-2016 New Zealand Herald (13 November 2016) reported that Kerry was in the New Zealand capital in mid-November talking with the prime minister and foreign minister. New Zealand is a strong partisan of the Arabs. For those concerned about such things New Zealand is a European, British colony. As I wrote above, it is "a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers." The New Zealanders, who belong to a colony, have no shame criticizing Israel for building settlements. Here is what is important in the article from 13 November 2016:

One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict. After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.

So Kerry and the NZ foreign minister discussed sponsoring a pro-Arab resolution. This contradicts US government spokesman Mark Toner who shamefully lied when denying any US collusion in the resolution produced in the Security Council the other day.

Do They Really Care about Occupation? More on EU & USA Attitudes towards Cyprus

We took up the same question a while ago. The European Union is not against occupation as such. It is against Israel. But how about the United States? President Obama constantly tells Israelis that his intentions for Israel are better than those of Israel's own leaders. Does he want peace for Israel? How about previous presidents? That requires a whole essay. So let's hold the question in abeyance for a while. Yet we will keep on using the Cyprus Question, the occupation of about 35% of the island by Turkey since 1974, and the consequent flight/expulsion of some 200,000 Greek Cypriots from the northern Turkish-occupied zone of the island.

Although Cyprus has been a member of the EU since 2004 the EU does not side with or work with the government of Cyprus to end the occupation. Indeed, it collaborates with that occupation while doing pro forma acts to indicate that it considers northern Cyprus occupied and that some solution should be found for the Cyprus Question. However, we would like to highlight here some expressions of the American attitude toward the Cyprus Question and the Greek-Turkish conflict, as well as the Greek-Turkish relationship in general.
In 1974, the US  State Department was not vocal in opposing the Turkish invasion. Moreover, the well-connected American "charity" and "peace" and "humanitarian" body, the American Friends Service Committee, an offshoot of the Quaker Church (the Society of Friends) appointed as its Middle East Field Representative John "Jack" Horner, who was living in what he described to me in 1975 as Girne, a city in the Turkish occupation zone, which the Greeks traditionally call Kyrenia. Apparently, he had no qualms about living in occupied territory and using the occupying power's name for an occupied town from which the Greeks had been driven out. By the way, Horner was a veteran of 29 years in the State Department, many of those years in Saudi Arabia.

In 1997, the prestigious world affairs commentator of the International Herald Tribune (something of a house organ for the views of the Washington foreign policy establishment) expressed great resentment in one of his columns that I am now looking at, over Greek endeavors "to thwart Turkish efforts to draw closer to the EU and eventually join it." For Mr Reginald Dale, it was of paramount importance to keep Turkey happy, lest it be pushed "into the arms of the turbulent Middle East." Indeed, Turkey's "ultimate place should be within a united Europe's economic and security perimeter, inside both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and the EU." The occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey is not at all mentioned in Dale's commentary. Indeed, the word occupation does not appear in the commentary at all. Dale instead refers to "the Cyprus problem" and "the long-running conflict over Cyprus between Greece and Turkey" as well as "the still-festering dispute over Cyprus."
However, Dale has a solution. The EU must take "a much tougher line toward Athens" [International Herald Tribune, 31 October 1997].

Notice that Dale makes no demand that Turkey end its occupation forthwith --or later-- or make concessions to the Greek Cypriots. For Mr Reginald Dale, respected journalist with the IHT, owned by the New York Times, the occupation is no problem at all. And it isn't even an occupation. It is merely a "conflict over Cyprus between" two sides.

Around the same time, US diplomat, Richard Holbrooke, sent to mediate between the opposing sides on Cyprus, also showed his favoritism for the Turks. He argued that the refusal of the EU to accept Turkey as a candidate for membership had led to a temporary --but serious-- dead end in talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriots to resolve the dispute [Ma`ariv, 5 May 1998 from Deutsche Presse Agentur; also Milliyet 5 May 1998]. Now, on the surface Holbrooke is blaming the EU for failure of his mediating mission. But why is the EU to blame? Because it won't give Turkey candidate status --as of May 1998-- for the EU. He has nothing to say about the Turkish occupation and does not use the word. He does not say that he is trying to "end the occupation" which is what Israel hears from a wide variety of Western politicians and diplomats. Why no talk of "ending the occupation" on Cyprus which would "let the refugees go home," which are other slogans that Israel hears from diplomats? Anyhow, by 2005 the EU had begun negotiations with Turkey with a view towards eventual Turkish EU membership. These negotiations began without Turkey ending its occupation of northern Cyprus.

It is obvious that there are occupations and "occupations" and these situations do not matter to the politicians or, if you like, the statesmen, or the diplomats. What they hate is not the alleged occupation but Israel. Given that what really moves them is hatred for Israel, not for occupation, one can easily imagine that they are not above inventing an "occupation" status for Judea-Samaria. Maybe their hatred for Jews and Israel makes it easy for them to find up to date reasons for hating Jews and Israel.

Now the EU Is Facing Subversion by Russia, Doing What the EU Does to Israel

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Europe

The EU and US have lately been complaining about the non-profit organization transparency bill being promoted by Ayelet Shaked, Israel's minister of Justice. They complain that it inhibits democracy, human rights and freedom, etc, the usual excuses for their attempts to bend Israel to their will so that it will capitulate to Arab fascists, jihadists, and genocidists --embodied in Fatah and Hamas-- and give up territory to them so that it loses its strategic terrain needed for defense against ground attacks. But now it turns out that Russia is supplying funds to political parties in EU countries that work against the EU. When Russia does it, it's not fair, it's not right, it's subversion. When the EU itself plus EU member states supply tens of millions of euros over the years to supposed Israeli "non-governmental organizations," supposed non-profit bodies, instead of using the money to help needy EU citizens, in Greece for example, then that's OK. That's democracy. But democracy depends on transparency, a supposed value of the EU. However, when Israel wants to subject foreign-funded so-called NGOs to transparency requirements, then that is not nice, not fair, not democratic. Just by the way, NGO Monitor has pointed out that the EU funding to the "palestinian authority" is anything but transparent. It is often very difficult for NGO Monitor to find out from official EU sources which "NGOs" the EU is funding and with how much money. Hypocrisy thy name is Europe.

Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, when Russia does it to the EU, then . . . . See below:

American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed.
James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, has been instructed by the US Congress to conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade. . . .
The review reflects mounting concerns in Washington over Moscow’s determination to exploit European disunity in order to undermine Nato, block US missile defence programmes and revoke the punitive economic sanctions regime imposed after the annexation of Crimea.
The US move came as senior British government officials told The Telegraph of growing fears that “a new cold war” was now unfolding in Europe, with Russian meddling taking on a breadth, range and depth far greater than previously thought.
“It really is a new Cold War out there,” the source said, “Right across the EU we are seeing alarming evidence of Russian efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity on a whole range of vital strategic issues.”
A dossier of “Russian influence activity” seen by The Sunday Telegraph identified Russian influence operations running in France, the Netherlands, Hungary as well as Austria and the Czech Republic, which has been identified by Russian agents as an entry-point into the Schengen free movement zone.The US intelligence review will examine whether Russian security services are funding parties and charities with the intent of “undermining political cohesion”, fostering agitation against the Nato missile defence programme and undermining attempts to find alternatives to Russian energy.[The Telegraph, London, 16 January 2016. For the full article see here]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In a related development, Austria, an EU member state, is passing legislation to limit foreign influence on Islamic religious institutions in Austria. See below:

More significantly, Paragraph 6.2 of the law seeks to limit the religious and political influence of foreign governments within the Austrian Muslim community by prohibiting foreign countries -- presumably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states -- from financing Islamic centers and mosques in Austria. [here]

Did the Western Great Powers Ever Want to Stop the Iranian Nuke Program? -- The Same Powers Favored Mussolini with the Same Trick

UPDATING 1-13&3-13-2012

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

It has been known for years that Iran was working on a nuclear program. Former Israeli prime minster Yits'haq Rabin was warning about it before he was killed in 1995. This program has long seemed aimed at producing an Iranian atomic bomb, despite Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in violation of that treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency was dealing with the issue years ago. Yet nothing concrete has been done by the major Western powers to stop the nuke program or, more precisely, nothing that we know of other than economic sanctions. And even those sanctions waited for years to be imposed. Iran was given a "last chance" to mend its nuclear ways as far back as 2003. But there were several subsequent "last chances."

The US delegate to the IAEA gave a rather good speech at the March 2006 meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. But little if any concrete action came out of the meeting. One problem was the head of the IAEA at the time, Muhammad Barada'i, an Egyptian who consistently belittled warnings that the Iranian nuclear project was meant to produce a nuke bomb. He did this although his own government seems to have been concerned with Iranian aggressive actions and intentions toward the Sunni Muslim world, as were several other Sunni Arab powers, like Saudi Arabia.

All this time Iran's work on developing the nuke bomb has been progressing, and sanctions of any seriousness were only applied relatively recently. This means that US presidents going back to Bill Clinton were not acting against the threat of an Iranian nuke bomb. These presidents include Clinton, George Bush II [I don't know about his father], and Obama who openly declared a soft policy on Iran. Obama's policy is softer now even than that of Britain although the US and Britain are so often in lock-step on foreign policy issues. This article & this one indicate that the Obama administration is opposed to stronger sanctions on Iran called for by the House of Representatives. Here is a report of British actions imposed after rioters instigated by the Iranian govt attacked the UK embassy in Teheran.

Elliott Abrams, a former Bush Administration defense official, lists a number of recent Obama administration statements that discard any threat or possibility of military force to be used against Iran and/or its nuke program. Abrams interprets a recent declaration by an Obama "national official," the deputy national security advisor, as giving:

. . . a White House assurance that the United States does not intend to challenge an assertion of Iranian dominance in the region. [here]

For years the great powers avoided placing sanctions on Iran which was violating its commitment to the NPT [non-proliferation treaty]. Now, the great powers are imposing sanctions. But what does that mean? The game of great powers imposing sanctions that will not accomplish their ostensible purpose, in this case preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, has a history. Consider the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations on Italy over the invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s.

The regime [Mussolini's regime] conquered its empire of stone and sand in Ethiopia, its "place in the sun." It succeeded in doing that, in fact, with Anglo-French backing. France and England, through the League of Nations which they controlled, had a fake economic embargo passed against Italy. However, excluded from it [the embargo] was the supply of Iraqi oil which our [Italian] troops marching on Addis Ababa could not do without. In any event, those sanctions were never applied and were even revoked immediately after the success of the Duce's colonial undertaking.
[Mario Jose Cereghino e Giovanni Fasanella, Il Golpe Inglese (Milano: Chiarelettere 2011), p 36-- emphasis added].
[The key phrase in this passage is "fake economic embargo". In the original it is "finto embargo economico"]

So fake or inadequate economic sanctions are an old trick of great powers. The authors of the passage quoted are saying in essence that Britain and France wanted Italy to conquer Ethiopia in that period. The delay of sanctions against Iran for years --let's say at least since 2003-- and the eventual imposition of inadequate sanctions just show that the powers can still get away with their old tricks. Nothing new under the sun.

- - - - - - - -
12-18-2011 Jonathan Tobin sees the sanctions as weak and notes the Obama administration's refusal to sanction dealings with Iran's central bank [National Bank of Iran].
1-5-2012 Jonathan Tobin sees Obama as reluctant or unwilling --and in case unlikely-- to enforce the sanctions against dealing with the Iranian Central Bank. Read him here.
1-8-2012 Michael Rubin believes that the Washington "foreign policy establishment" engages in doubletalk in order not to propose real and biting sanctions on Iran's ayatollahs [here]
1-13-2012 Jonathan Tobin wonders if the Obama administration condemnation of the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist conceals a reluctance to stop Iran's nuke project [here]
3-13-2012 Jonathan Tobin claims that Israel's hints that it might strike Iran's nuke project have brought Obama & Cameron together in antagonism to such an Israeli strike and have led the EU and USA to increase sanctions on Iran [here]

A Declaration of War -- The "Palestinian Authority's" UDI [unilateral declaration of independence] Gambit at the UN

UPDATED 10-2-2011 at bottom

Barry Rubin points out that the PA/PLO's gambit of asking the UN --whether the Security Council or General Assembly is secondary-- to approve an Arab state in the Land of Israel without negotiating borders and other issues with Israel could lead to a lot of violence and violates all prior agreements with Israel as well --I would add-- as violating Security Council resolutions 242 & 338 that call for Israel and its Arab neighbors to negotiate the issues between them in order to make peace. I will quote from 242 at the end [338 is just a reconfirmation of 242] so that readers can see that the PLO/PA is violating the Security Council's own resolutions that are supposed to be binding, according to the UN charter.

Bear in mind that if borders are not agreed on with Israel, then the PLO/PA will be declaring a state which will spread over land that rightly belongs to Israel or --in any event-- is claimed by Israel or perhaps their own declaration will be phrased in such a way as to claim all of Israel --all the land from the Jordan to the sea. This is what the PLO did in its 1988 Algiers Declaration --its previous declaration of a state-- by implication. Now, if today's PLO/PA claims any land that Israel also claims and that can be shown to already belong to Israel or is claimed by Israel, then a PLO/PA UDI [unilateral declaration of independence] will essentially be a declaration of war.

Rubin starts by quoting from the cynical and amoral Obama henchman, Rahm Emanuel:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” –Rahm Emanuel

By Barry Rubin

One of the amazing things about the amazing incompetence of the Obama Administration is that we’ve become so accustomed to it that we take for granted things that would have made opinion makers during past presidencies clutch the upper left side of their chests and collapse, writhing in agony.

Or to put it another way, if an Obama policy falls in the public arena and the mass media acts deaf will anyone say: “OMG! Can this really be happening?” Well, I will follow Rahm Emanuel’s advice and hope that this serious crisis could be for this administration an “opportunity…to do things you think you could not do before” or to start looking for a new policymaker.

Consider that the United States is on the verge of a foreign policy disaster that could easily have been averted by proper statecraft. The Palestinian Authority (PA, technically speaking, along with its Hamas partner) is about to demand that the United Nations break every Israel-Palestinian agreement over almost twenty years, destroy any possibility of serious future negotiation, reward Palestinian intransigence, and generally make a mess of the Middle East.

The specific issue is recognition of a Palestinian state as existing right now. The result, as I’ve outlined previously, would be catastrophic and don’t let anyone get away with pretending that this isn’t a bad thing or won’t make much difference.

A “normal” U.S. policy would have begun pressing the PA to back down from this strategy almost a year ago, when PA leaders began talking about it. Rather than take quick action—or, indeed, punish, pressure, or even criticize the PA for anything it did—the Obama Administration stood by and made disapproving murmurs from time to time.

We are now facing the consequences of the policy of: let’s be weak so people will like us; leading from behind; not rewarding friends or punishing enemies,; refusing to use U.S. leverage (Turkey votes against sanctions on Iran? Let’s put them in charge of Syria’s future!); and generally letting other countries walk all over the United States. I’d love to list other examples of similar issues here but don’t want to take your time so you can fill in the additional details.

Now, the cloud once the size of a man’s hand has turned into a more serious big brother of Hurricane Irene. If you don’t mind my mixing hurricanes, think of U.S. foreign policy as New Orleans.

A colleague suggests that the administration is now panicked. I think it isn’t panicking but should be. A sign of not understanding the magnitude of the problem is that it is only now starting to do what should have begun around September 2010, not September 2011. If you are a U.S. citizen living in a Muslim-majority country you might think about what you will be doing later this month.

As a result, the United States has no leverage over the PA, a client that depends on Washington for any possibility of actual peace, having a real state, and paying its bills. Equally, it has no leverage over virtually any other country in the world in terms of voting on this issue. America has been transformed from superpower to super-cower, begging the PA to take pity on it and back down from an obviously successful strategy.

I love the way the New York Times’ article puts it:

“The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians recognition as a state at the United Nations. It may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats.”

Yes, it might also be too late—just maybe—to stop the American Civil War or prevent the 1929 stock market crash. What the Obama Administration has done is to:

–Propose a new round of PA talks with Israel.

–Made clear that it will veto the PA bid in the Security Council.

This is about the most serious threat since a small mammal (I don’t want to offend anyone by mentioning its precise species) told the Big Bad Wolf not to blow down its house of straw and eat him or he’d bleed all over the Wolf’s clothes.

First, the PA doesn’t want negotiations with Israel. It has been rejecting talks for two years, even refusing them during a requested Israeli freeze of construction on West Bank settlements, even when an east Jerusalem freeze was added to it. The PA also rejected talks within minutes after Obama laid his personal prestige on the line in September 2009 to announce a high-level summit at Camp David.

Let’s face it: these people don’t want serious negotiations. Why? Because they don’t want a peace agreement with Israel; they want a state unfettered by concessions or compromise so they can pursue total victory and Israel’s destruction. (There’s nothing “right-wing” about that conclusion. All the facts point to it and only wishful thinking says differently.)

As for the U.S. vetoing the proposal, what does the PA care about that? It will mainly hurt the United States. There will be a vote in the General Assembly with a margin of support for the PA (cowardly Western democracies which know the idea is terrible will abstain and let the United States take the heat) similar to the size of the majority in the U.S. Congress supporting a declaration endorsing Mother’s Day. Second, there will probably be anti-American riots throughout the Muslim-majority world. Any good done by Obama’s almost three-year-long effort to make Arab and Muslims like him will be cancelled out.

Fortunately, though, Obama doesn’t hold a grudge, at least against foreign enemies who “diss” him and America.

I know that I’ve tried to be entertaining here through the use of sarcasm and humor. But my warning and critique are not exaggerated. This was an avoidable crisis and will be much worse than almost anyone recognizes.

The non-EPA approved icing on the cake is that afterward the Obama Administration will do absolutely nothing to the PA or to affect negatively those who voted for it which will, of course, encourage additional acts of diplomatic hostility and real world disasters of this type. The Obama Administration’s apparent motto is expressed by wearing a large sign that says, “Kick me.” Unfortunately, the object being kicked isn’t the personal property of the chief executive but belongs to the United States of America.
- - - - end of Rubin article [see at Pajamas Media here]- - - - -

UN Security Council resolution 242 [relevant excerpts]:
The Security Council
. . . .
Affirms that the fulfillment of [UN] Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace. . .
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. . . .
Requests the Secretary-General to . . . promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. . . --end--

Obviously, a declaration of a state that has not obtained the agreement of Israel violates the Security Council's principle of agreement and is not likely to be peaceful and accepted, nor is it likely to lead to a just and lasting peace. In addition, secure. . . boundaries refers to defensible borders. Otherwise, indefensible borders can tempt a belligerent power that wants to land from another state to go to war. Not only do the PLO/PA reject secure boundaries for Israel but by refusing to negotiate boundaries with Israel and by implicitly or explicitly claiming all of the land from the Jordan to the sea, the PLO/PA is rejecting peace with Israel. It is important to note that Obama himself, in his notorious May 19, 2011, speech, also rejected secure boundaries for Israel by demanding that Israel agree to go back to the very insecure 1949 armistice lines [he said "1967 lines"]. Let us bear in mind that those insecure lines tempted Jordan, Egypt and Syria to instigate war on Israel in June 1967. Curiously, Jordan is now warning against a PLO/PA UDI which it believes will be negative for Jordan. Jordan has also stated that it would vote against the UDI in the General Assembly.

Furthermore, whereas Rubin addresses the likely real world outcomes and causes of a PLO/PA UDI, we ought to also mention the injustice that it would represent. Here is an immoral, unjust, murderous entity, speaking in the name of a people that no one had heard of 100 years ago, that now demands a state without negotiating with Israel. Indeed the Arab leadership in the Land of Israel [Arab Higher Committee] had denied the very existence of a country called "palestine" in testimony in 1946 before the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine. And in the name of this entity, invented apparently by psychological warfare/cognitive warfare experts after Israel's reestablishment as a state in 1948, a new state might be recognized in the name of a people that did not exist in history. And this injustice is being perpetrated against the Jews, oppressed, exploited, humiliated and reviled for centuries in both Christendom and Islam.
- - - - - - - - -
10-2-2011 Emanuele Ottolenghi discusses the PLO/PA's UDI gambit at the UN [here]. Ottolenghi, Jerry Gordon, & Mike Bates in discussion. Ottolenghi points out the PLO/PA side refuses to negotiate, instead making impossible demands for pre-conditions.

Do the West & the Arabs Have the Right to Set Up a State to Be Called "palestine"?

The people of Israel, later called Jews, have lived in and been connected to the Land of Israel for about 3450 years since the going out from Egypt. From the time of Alexander of Macedon [died 323 CE] till Roman Emperor Hadrian, Greeks and Romans called the country Judea, that is, the Jewish land, the land of the Jews. The name is also spelled Judaea and IVDAEA in Latin. The name is confirmed in the Greek and Latin writings of that long period. It was not a land inhabited by Arabs, although there were some there and in the vicinity, no doubt. It was Hadrian who changed the country's name to Syria Palaestina [in 135 CE]. This was an act of hostility to the Jews who had rebelled against the Empire three times. Changing the name was meant as a punishment for the Jews and a way of obliterating the Jewish identity of their country. The Jews also suffered in that many were sold as slaves and otherwise driven off their lands, although Jews remained the predominant population in the country. Today, in a way not far different from Hadrian's, world empires use the name "palestine" in order to deny the Jews rights in their own homeland. The empires and much or most of the West, as well as the Arab and Muslim world, demand that Israel, the national state of the Jews, allow establishment of an Arab state to be called "palestine" in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. They follow in the footsteps of Emperor Hadrian.

Yet there never was a "palestinian people" in all history. Such a people is a modern invention of psychological/cognitive warfare, probably by British psywar experts. The notion that Israel was fighting not Arabs but a "palestinian people" came to world attention in 1964 with foundation of the Palestine Liberation Organization. At that time, the PLO declared to the king of Jordan, Hussein, that the land that they wanted for a state was NOT any land under his rule, not the "West Bank" of Jordan, but the part of the ancient Land of Israel under Jewish control, that is, the State of Israel within its 1949 armistice lines, since Israel had no land borders at that time. But if we examine this newly minted people, "the palestinians," we may ask how they differ in essential ways from the Arabs east of the Jordan? Or from the Arabs in Syria? Do they speak a different language? The PLO's declaration of a state of Palestine in November 1988 in Algiers expressed loyalty to the general Arab culture and cultural legacy. Indeed, the PLO has long been a member of the Arab League, another Arab state waiting to take power, as it were.

Today, now that Israel won in 1967 --in the face of Arab genocidal threats-- the lands of Judea-Samaria, formerly under Jordanian rule, and now that the PLO collaborates diplomatically with major world powers supposedly with the aim of setting up an Arab state in Judea-Samaria to be called "palestine," the Powers, the UN, the EU, and just about everybody overlook the basic refusal of the PLO/PA to make peace with Israel in any boundaries. Abu Mazen published an op ed [ghost written] in the NYTimes the other day in which he said that if the UN would recognize a PLO/PA state, the PLO/PA would use this status to prosecute Israel, to delegitimize Israel in world legal forums, such as the World Court at the Hague, the Int'l Criminal Court, the misnamed UN "Human Rights Council," etc. So no peace can come out of concessions made to the PLO/PA or out of negotiations with the PLO/PA. Actually, Abu Mazen has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than 2 1/2 years, since September 2008 when olmert was still prime minister. Further, the PLO/PA has made a pact with the Hamas for a joint govt of the territories already ceded by Israel to the racist, anti-Jewish PLO/PA. And the Hamas is brutally frank in its aim of genocide against the Jews. This aim appears in Article 7 of the Hamas charter. Obviously, Israel should not negotiate with a Nazi-like body such as Hamas. Hitler, to be sure, was never as frank in his genocidal purposes as the Hamas now is. But Obama may demand in today's speech that Israel negotiate with the Hamas Nazis nevertheless. He is part of the problem today.

Now let us return to the Jews' ties to the Land of Israel. Jews were a substantial part of Israel's population until the Crusader conquest. Between the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and 1112 or 1113, a dozen years later, the Crusaders massacred the bulk of the Jews in the country [according to historian Moshe Gil & others]. The Jews were ground down between two millstones, Islam and militant Christendom. Even after the Crusader massacres had subsided, the Jews were still a noticeable part of the population. After the Crusades, of course, the Jews returned to their pre-Crusades status of subjects of the Islamic state, dhimmis. And the Mamluk Empire, succeeding the Crusaders probably treated the worse Jews than they had been treated before, if that were possible. The flow of Jews to the Diaspora continued. Those who want to deny that Jews in the Dispersion were of Judaic descent, should bear in mind that the pagan Roman Empire had begun to forbid conversion of non-Jews to Judaism and this prohibition was made more severe under the subsequent Christianized empire. The prohibition served to preserve the original Jewish stock over the centuries. The genetic ties between Jews in the Diaspora from Minsk to Marrakesh and from Berlin to Baghdad have been confirmed by modern DNA studies, which even show a genetic affinity to some of the Arabs and other Mediterranean peoples, albeit there is not much affinity in cultural or moral terms between Jews and Arabs.

In recognition of --among other things-- the preservation of Jewish ethnicity since Roman times, the international community at the San Remo Conference [1920] and in the League of Nations [1922] recognized the Land of Israel --which they unfortunately called "palestine"-- as the Jewish National Home. Britain accepted the League's mandate to foster development of the National Home, including fostering "close settlement" of Jews on the land [Article 6 of the Mandate]. Needless to say, Britain betrayed its commitment to the Mandate, and in fact prevented Jews from finding refuge in the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home, that is, during the Holocaust. Today, the National Home as a legal entity binding on the international community is largely forgotten, certainly at the UN, and by Britain in particular. This teaches us that Jews cannot trust Britain or the international community in general. Unfortunately, the United States is now following the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel path earlier trod by the United Kingdom. The Powers cannot be considered morally competent to judge Israel or to determine its future. The Jews cannot rely on the promises of the Powers.

Obama's speech can only be awaited with suspicion at best.

- - - - - - - - -
Jackson Diehl explains why suspicion is justified [here]

Influencing American Foreign Policy -- The Impotence of Jews & Arabs Together

UPDATING links added 12-15-2010

The Wikileaks are telling the broad public some truths that were earlier mainly known only to the very well-informed. Jeffrey Goldberg explains that American foreign policy is made by US officials, although I would not say that policy is necessarily made in the American interest. That interest is itself a matter of interpretation and controversy.

The Impotence of the

Pan-Semitic Front

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Here's a fact that might astonish Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, whose book, "The Israel Lobby," posits the existence of a nefarious, all-powerful Jewish lobby that works in direct opposition to American interests: The "Lobby" (they love to capitalize the word, to accentuate its alleged uniqueness) has failed to convince two successive American administrations, one Republican and one Democratic, to attack Iran's nuclear sites. So much for Jewish power.

Here's another fact that might astonish Walt and Mearsheimer: It turns out that the Jewish lobby wasn't even the main lobby working to bring about an attack on Iran. It was, according to the treasure trove of State Department cables released by Wikileaks, the Arab lobby -- whose lead lobbyist is, by the way, the King of Saudi Arabia (which is a big job, since he's also in charge of the world's oil supply) -- that was at the forefront of an intensive, even ferocious, anti-Iran lobbying effort. For Walt and Mearsheimer to acknowledge that the Arab lobby, and not the Jewish lobby, was the prime mover of this issue would mean that they would have to recall their book, and somehow stuff back into a bottle all of the anti-Semitic invective they unleashed in the book's wake. So don't expect an apology anytime soon.

In sum, what we have here is a situation in which all of the Semites in combination have been proven impotent in their attempt to move American foreign policy. Which suggests that American foreign policy might actually be made by Americans. This is definitely a tough week for the neo-Lindberghians.

This article available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/11/the-impotence-of-the-pan-semitic-front/67222/ Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.

I'm not sure that Goldberg believes that walt-mearsheimer really believe in what they wrote in their own book called The Israel Lobby. In fact, Mearsheimer himself was interviewed on NPR several years ago and contradicted the claims made by walt & himself in their book, which might better be called a non-book, to use terminology from the 1960s and 1970s. Goldberg would have done better to write: Here's a fact that might astonish walt & mearsheimer if they really believed what they wrote in their book The Israel Lobby.

The revelation discussed by Goldberg is that Arab rulers too, not only Israel, were very concerned by the Iranian nuclear bomb project. This was known long ago and even reported fairly frankly in early 2009 by an Arab reporter with the Associated Press. Maybe the phoney experts on Middle Eastern affairs who proliferate and swarm in the major mass media and the "think tanks" don't read AP reports. Otherwise, why were they so ignorant and misleading?? A Jerusalem Post editorial mentions some of the names: Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy, Robert Dreyfuss of the once rational The Nation, and of course walt-mearsheimer. There are many more lesser and greater lights who reiterated the same silliness.

Getting back to Goldberg's point that the influence of the Semites in Washington, of Jews and Arabs taken either separately or together, was not enough to move Washington to a really firm policy against the Iranian Bomb, a policy not ruling out military action, as several Arab rulers called for, what do we conclude. First of all, the actual US policy was made by Americans, not Arabs or Jews or both, and not necessarily in the true, paramount interest of the American people which would be to limit nuclear proliferation. Secondly, it seems that --despite many fine words over the many years history of the Iran nuke endeavor-- the Washington policymakers did not want to stop the Iranian Bomb project. They want Iran to have the Bomb.

- - - - - - - - - -
Barry Rubin on Wikileaks and the Iranian Bomb [here]
David Horowitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post on Obama's duplicity concerning the Iranian Bomb Project [here]
Judith Apter Klinghoffer covers disappointment among Western "leftists" that Arabs too opposed the Iranian Bomb [here]. She also argued that "Obama lied when he pretended that he needed to kick Israel to convince Arabs to support his anti-Iran policy" [here].
12-8-2010 Tariq al-Mohayed admits that the wikileaks revelations about Arab opposition to the Iranian Bomb Project were true [here]. He calls them: "leaked US diplomatic cables."
12-15-2010 Martin Kramer brings a lecture from two years ago explaining that Arab states feared an Iranian Bomb [here].

Zbig Brzezinski Wants to Protect the Iranian Bomb Project

Zbig and Jimmy Carter helped Ayatollah Khomeini take over Iran in early 1979, unceremoniously pushing out the Shah, an American ally. By aiding --even sponsoring-- Khomeini's takeover, the Carter administration opened the road for Ahmadinejad, the current Iranian president, who is presiding over a project to develop nuclear bombs in violation of Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither Pres. Obama nor Pres. Bush before him is showing any real determination to stop this very dangerous eventuality from coming to fruition. Zbig Brzezinski must feel that he did not do enough damage when Carter was president. He now urges the Obama administration to protect the Iranian Nuclear Bomb project from Israel, although Israel has grounds under international law and the UN charter to attack Iran and destroy its bomb-making efforts, since Iran under A-jad has already threatened to destroy Israel. Here is Zbig at his best or his worst [about the same]:

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? ... We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama's presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama's foreign policy cred. The Washington Post reported: "Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski."

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn't be a friend to Israel, as Brzezinski's views of Israel attracted criticism from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama campaign, said at the time. “There is a lot of disinformation that is being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign. Brzezinski came out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago they talked a couple of times. That’s the extent of it, and Sen. Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski is not who he looks to. They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [ABCNews 20 Sept 2009]

--end--

Note Zbig's contempt for Iraqi sovereignty. He describes Iraqi airspace as "our airspace," that is, United States airspace. However, allowing Iran to get the Bomb is not healthy for the American people --or for the rest of the world for that matter.
Also note that Zbig's hostility to Israel is palpable in the quotes above. He surely hates Israel more than the current Iranian regime, if he is opposed to them at all in any way.
- - - - - - - - - -

Earlier posts on Zbig on Emet m'Tsiyon [here & here]

Barack Hussein Obama: Slick, Subtle, Sinister and Deceitful -- And Racist against Jews

UPDATING 9-28-2009. Diagram of Obama's insinuations at bottom. 11-2-2009

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Many lies resembling truth, Hesiod

Barack Hussein Obama's UN General Assembly speech was racist in denying Jewish rights to settle in Judea-Samaria and Gaza [settlements are not "legitimate"]. It also subtly justified Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. How so?

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land.

Here Obama insinuates that Israel is to blame for the "boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own." This is done by juxtaposition with the Sderot girl under rocket attack, obviously a deliberate act of Arab terrorists in Gaza, and the carry over from that situation to the "boy in Gaza who has no clean water. . ." Israel regularly supplies water to Gaza despite the de facto state of war with that territory. Hamas, which has governed Gaza since January 2006 is responsible for the lack of clean water of Gaza, if the claim is true at all. Huge sums of international aid from rich Arab states, from the EU, the USA, and Japan, as well as various EU states separately, have been available to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority [PLO/Fatah] before it for building infrastructure, for an improved society and for a state. But Hamas and the PA have generally avoided building water and sewage facilities, homes, hospitals, etc., for their people. It is more politically useful to keep them visibly poor so that they have something to blame Israel for. Meanwhile, the foreign funds go to the insiders whose hands are close to the plate, as well as for buying weapons, explosives, etc. Indeed Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both don't much care for building infrastructure. Both would rather use the money to fight jihad. Certainly, good, clean drinking water for that Gaza boy is far down on the list of priorities.

Obama also lies in the claim about the boy in Gaza having "no country to call his own." After all, Gaza is governed by Arabs, by his fellow Palestinian Arabs.


Candidate Barack Obama in Sderot receiving a T-shirt saying "I love Sderot" from then Sderot mayor Eli Moyal [summer 2008]. Note the horizontal stacks of remnants of rockets shot at Sderot from Gaza. This collection is kept at the Sderot police station.

Now, if Israel is to blame for a Gaza child lacking clean water, then maybe Hamas is right to shoot rockets at the civilian population of the oppressor state. Hence, Obama was justifying Hamas shooting rockets by insinuation, by comparing deliberate acts of Hamas and other Gaza terrorist groups [shooting rockets] with the supposed lack of "clean water" which is Hamas and PA's fault, if it is true at all, not Israel's fault.

This is a very slick attack by Obama on Israel. The part of his UN GA speech dealing with Israel was a rather clever propaganda/psychological warfare assault on Israel. To wit, Israel has things and denies them to the poor folk of Gaza. Israel causes their deprivation.

Barack Hussein Obama is also signaling an overture to Hamas by these basically soft comments, in which seeming criticism of Hamas for rocket shooting is vitiated by blaming Israel for deprivation in Gaza.

Of Obama's denial of "legitimacy" to Jewish rights to live across the 1949 armistice line in Judea-Samaria is a racist position. Is he a friend of Israel?
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-28-2009
Obama draws false parallels in his UN GA speech
He clearly insinuates Israeli moral equivalency with Hamas, making Israel at fault for Hamas' rockets, blaming Israel for infrastructure and political problems in Gaza.
Let's look at this in diagram form:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A Child Victim on Each Side //\\ What Does Each Suffer & Who Causes It?

1)
the Israeli girl in Sderot } She fears "that a rocket will take her life" --
the Israeli girl in Sderot } - - a rocket shot by Hamas or other Gaza terrorists,
the Israeli girl in Sderot } - - but Obama doesn't say who shoots the rockets.
2)
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} He "has no clean water and no country" --
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} Obama doesn't say who denies the
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} boy "clean water" and a "country." but he insinuates that it is Israel because if her suffering is caused by the other side [Hamas/other Gaza terrorists], then his suffering too is caused by the other side [that is, Israel].

So Israel is guilty by insinuation of denying "clean water" and a "country" to the Gaza boy. This is bad enough, but these alleged denials by Israel could also be considered justified reasons for war [casus belli] and therefore Israel may be or is guilty that Hamas and other Gaza terrorists shoot rockets at its civilian population.

As said above, in fact Israel supplies drinking water to Gaza. If there are shortages in drinking water in Gaza, then Hamas is responsible as explained above. Further, does the Gaza boy really lack a country? After all, Gaza is self-governing and generously supplied with funds by outside donors. Perhaps the boy doesn't have the country that he wants. Maybe. Then we could ask about the Jews' lack of a country, their country, for more than a thousand years, partly because of Arab rule in the Land of Israel. Maybe the Hamas' program for genocide of the Jews [as per Article 7 of the Hamas charter] is good reason for Israel not to let Hamas expand its sphere of territorial control.

Obama is using the gestalt effect here. This effect depends on insinuation and following a logical pattern even to where it is not explicit.
Besides the obnoxious moral equivalency here, Obama is justifying Hamas attacks on Israel and uttering lies.
- - - - - - - - - -
Also see Meryl Yourish on the UN speech [here]
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-2-2009 Obama's remarks on the boy in Gaza quoted above seem, on further thought, to touch on old, traditional Judeophobic themes. I wonder what his speechwriter intended. These themes are:
1- Jews harming an innocent boy, as in the typical ritual murder charge [Hugh of Lincoln, Simon of Trent, the Beilis case], &
2-- Jews poisoning wells, since Israel denies "clean water" to "the Palestinian boy in Gaza." He is not making the innuendo that Israel denies water to the boy in Gaza, but that the water, if supplied, is not "clean," that it is --somehow-- unhealthy, maybe poisonous.

Camera confirms that Israel sends water to Gaza:
". . . despite the virtural declaration of war against Israel by the Hamas rulers of Gaza, Israel still sends to Gaza another 4 MCM of Israeli water annually. "

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