.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

President Rivlin Cites the Quran's Recognition of the Holy Land as Jewish to Refute Abbas' Lies about Jewish History

Mahmoud Abbas puts on a good show when he wants to. His speech on Sunday, 14 January, was entertaining, just chock full of ludicrous lies and inventions. It was what you would expect from a leader of the PLO/PA and disciple of yasser arafat, founder of the PLO and the "palestinian authority" [PA]  as well as being one of the founders of late twentieth century terrorism. 

One of Abbas' lies was projecting the so-called "palestinian people," unknown to the world before the 20th century, into the prehistoric past. "Before our Patriarch Abraham," he said. He did not acknowledge any Jewish or Israelite history in the Land of Israel. Maybe he forgot that the Quran itself, that is, the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims among whom Abbas counts himself. The Quran specifically says that Allah assigned the Holy Land to the Jews, the people of Moses [Quran, Sura 5:20-22 in the usual numbering -see more here].

However, Reuben Rivlin, President of the State of Israel acted in a helpful and responsible manner and reminded Abbas of what he had forgotten or pretended to forget. That is, that the Quran itself has its Zionist verses which not only report the assignment of the Land to the Jews but foresee the return of the Jews to their Land.

Rivlin said,
"In his [Abbas'] words, he denies our return to our homeland, even though Abu Mazen also knows very well that the Koran itself mentions the recognition of the Land of Israel as our land. Without this basic recognition, we cannot build trust and advance" [emphasis added].

In case you're wondering how Rivlin knows what is in the Quran, his father was a professor of Arabic at the Hebrew University and in fact translated the Quran into Hebrew. So it is likely that Rivlin himself understands or even speaks a good deal of Arabic and that his father pointed out significant verses  and passages in the Quran to him.

Abbas' speech also asserts and refers to a certain alleged Campbell-Bannerman Document which is said to lay out a rationale for the British to plant Jews in "palestine" in order to prevent Arab unity. Other than being anachronistic in its concepts and terminology (since it talks at length about British concern over pan-Arabism which was hardly a concern of theirs in 1907), and "just too good to be true" from the pan-Arab, Arab nationalist standpoint, no such document has been found in British archives and what is presented as such seems to be a creation of Nasser's intelligence services.

One of the offensive things that Abbas did in the speech was to curse President Trump several times with the common Arabic curse Yahhrab beytuk. It means: May your house be destroyed. According to a report on Israel radio --probably by Eran Zinger-- he cursed Trump this way several times during the speech.

The phrase and curse Yahhrab beytuk is comparable to the Hebrew     ייחרב ביתך   
It's not the strongest Arabic curse, as I understand, but fairly strong.

Here are other reports on Abbas' speech and Rivlin's response:

New York Times here
Times of Israel here.

Jerusalem Post here.

MEMRI has the relevant parts of the original speech in Arabic --which went on for 2 1/2 hours-- in video film with subtitles in English -- here.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Some of the Bad Features of the European Union -- A German Dictatorship?

Just what is wrong with the EU? Why is it reasonable to doubt its continued existence after the 2020s? We know that the EU is governed by a central bureaucracy, located in Brussels, which makes decisions, according to its authority deriving from the treaties that set up the EU. These decisions are subject to little democratic control, although representative bodies of the various member states meet from time to time and can theoretically oppose policies coming out of the Brussels HQ of the EU. However, what happens usually is that the representatives of the member state govts. are presented with faits accomplis, backed up, usually by Germany and the influential states of northwestern Europe.

Matteo Renzi, former prime minister of Italy, gives a glimpse into EU policy making or rather policy ratifying. He also indicates German hegemony over the EU which is reflected in the votes of the EU executive and representative bodies, the EU Commission and the EU Council (Council of Europe) respectively [the EU parliament has so little power that it's not worth dwelling on]. In a recent book Renzi writes that German prime minister, Madame Merkel, is considered by many in the Italian political world to be the "chief strategist of an anti-Italian vision." Renzi states that he respects "her and certainly does not agree in the least with those who point to her as the one responsible for Italian problems." Be that as it may, Renzi clearly shows that she so dominates EU politics that the EU Council members, governmental leaders in their own countries, fear to criticize or gainsay her:
". . . I realize that in the Council, she is so respected and involved in all the issues that few have the courage to contradict her publicly. Which is what I do on more than one occasion. The idea that nobody can allow himself to raise the least bewilderment over the German contradictions makes me angry. The exchanges with Merkel are difficult on many issues, from the flexibility of budgets [of member states] to the relationship with Russia . . . . [And] up to the regional German banks to whose questionable system of governance and control I am the only one to point explicitly and transparently --- and to the contradictions of Berlin's economic policy. . . .  Merkel does not appreciate the style with which I open --often deliberately-- debates in the Council but begins to  scrutinize me in order to understand me better. Over time, a collaborative relationship develops between us." [Corriere della Sera, 9 Luglio 2017]
Thus Merkel so dominates the Council that other leaders of government fear to contradict her. Meanwhile, problems in Germany are overlooked. Hardly a healthy situation for the EU.

Renzi goes on about Merkel. "The theme on which we are farthest apart is the economy. I believe that the policy of austerity adopted by the European Union is a tragic error." In this vein, Renzi also criticizes the EU response to the earthquake disaster in Italy in 2016:
"The earthquake shocks of the end of October 2016 did not cause any deaths only by a miracle. . . . . And what did the usually punctilious technicians of the European structure [the bureaucrats] do? While the houses are collapsing, they send you [= himself] a verbal extortion note in the form of a whisper to Italian journalists in Brussels --saying that the budget law of 2017 is good only if the deficit is subsequently reduced by 0.2%. . . . But how is it that they don't understand that, while we are all concentrating on support for the evacuees [from the earthquake], Europe should be in the basilica of the patron saint San Benedetto with its own heart, instead of choosing that moment to make a (marginal) request for settlement of the debt? This is what happens when politics abdicates to the technocrats. . . .  I want to shout to the European bureaucrats that in the face of pain, first of all  there is compassion, respect, empathy. And then, only afterwards, the technical stratagems. . . . Respecting the European rules, moreover, cannot be an ideological mantra" [Corriere della Sera, 9 Luglio 2017]
Maybe Renzi gave reasons why Guy Milliere was right when he agreed with my suggestion after a lecture here in Jerusalem that the European Union was a death pact, un pacte de mort.

Obviously, neither the European Union nor its member states can be a model for our Israel nor can we trust the EU to be wise or compassionate in its diplomacy in the Middle East and first of all we cannot trust the suggestions and proposals that the EU makes to us in order to --supposedly-- bring about peace for Israel. The EU is notoriously hypocritical and often enough self-destructive yet arrogant. We don't want to be members and the EU does not want us. And if a case in point is needed, take Greece which suffered from EU/Eurozone efforts to supposedly help them, as Luciano Fontana [chief editor of Corriere] indicated, the EU/Eurozone failed in dealing with the Greek Debt Crisis which began in 2010 and is still going on. Greece can never pay its current debt, most of which was incurred by Greece after it reported in 2010 an inability to pay interest on its debt at that time. The debt is now much greater than then after "bail-outs" by the Eurozone. And it cannot be paid off. And the Eurozone led by Madame Merkel whom Renzi describes above, does not want to forgive or even restructure the Greek debt. Maybe, it is hinted, we will do that after you have reformed as we wish, etc. More of that extortion that Renzi mentioned?

The hypocrisy is even worse when we recall that Madame Merkel's Germany did not have to pay WW2 reparations according to a postwar treaty, nor did it ever pay back more than a small part of the US Marshall Plan loans [some $15 billion in 1947 dollars], and even that small amount stayed in Germany; nor did Germany pay its full war reparations debt to France for WW One. And the EU finances a host of so-called "civil society" NGOs that work to undermine Israel's standing in the world and Israel's society.  Hence Israel must be very wary in its dealings with the European Union. It is not a friend.
- - - - - - - -
Reference on EU government -- edulcorated to be sure
Pascal Fontaine, 12 Lecons sur l'Europe (Bruxelles: Commission europeenne 2007), pp 16-21.
- - - - - - - -
Renzi's reference to San Benedetto is to the Christian Saint Benedict, the patron saint of Europe in
Christian tradition and belief.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Fantasy & Reality about the European Union

Many people make a rather good living off the European Union. Besides, gourmet food is often served in the Brussels headquartes of the EU. There are the bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere plus the elected members of the European parliament. The pay is better than average and often better than for comparable jobs in the home country of the bureaucrat or parliamentary deputy.

Hence, many have little reason or inclination to rock the boat with sustained and substantial criticism of the EU. What some do is to let out a little mild criticism of a particular policy or person or making a general criticism in a vague fashion while at the same time extolling the EU's lofty purposes [supposedly lofty]. That's what Antonio Tajani --president of the EU's parliament-- did when speaking to a group of influential people back home in Italy:

"The European Union is in the midst of fording the river. There are many things that don't work but more Europe is needed, not less. Leaving it means suicide, as many in the United Kingdom are realizing and even Marine Le Pen understands that the war on the euro [currency] is a mistake."
[Corriere della Sera, 9 Luglio 2017; emph. added]

The reader will make up his own mind as to how sensible that reasoning is. But before we analyze it, here's some reality from the chief editor [direttore] of Corriere della Sera, Luciano Fontana:

"Europe --the chief editor of Corriere observed-- has become a major actor [protagonista] in our lives. and even in our election campaigns. A Europe that often makes mistakes, [a Europe] whose management of the Greek crisis and the migrants cries out for revenge."
[Corriere, 9 Luglio 2017]

There are many things wrong with the EU which was likely the main reason that British folks voted against the EU and for Brexit more than a year ago. Despite its lofty rhetoric, the EU is very undemocratic in that decisions are made in Brussels by EU appointed officials rather than by national parliaments whereas according to the EU treaty, the Brussels officials can overrule laws passed by national parliaments, although this power can be challenged. But the Brussels bureaucracy is much less responsive to local needs, desires and conditions than national parliaments are. And then these Brussels officials like to impose a one-size-fits-all policy on all of the EU countries which of course have their own local traditions, histories, conditions, political environment. And obviously this causes resentment throughout the EU.

Then we come to the Euro currency, the single currency which is legal tender in most EU countries which gave up their national currencies to join the single currency zone. That was a bad idea whose time had come. Imagine. A single currency was imposed on some fifteen countries without a common tax policy/tax laws/, without a common pension system, a common state budget, common labor laws, so on and so forth. As no doubt was predicted the currency has great problems and one major victim --Greece, although other countries have suffered as well. To be sure, tourists who travel from one Eurozone country to another find traveling simpler [because they don't need to change currency with every new country that they come to]. Otherwise, few benefit. Un disastro, an Italian friend told me. We could go on about the EU's faults. But rather than be tedious, let's go on to Signor Tajani's logic and common sense.

"many things . . . don't work but more Europe is needed, not less". "More Europe" in the words of the Brussels crowd means closer political integration within the EU and more central control of the lives of EU citizens. But Tajani has already told us that many things don't work in the EU. So why would he think that "more Europe" would be better rather than worse? Does the centralized bureacuratic system of the EU where decisions are made far from the governed and often against their will and/or their better judgment, seem to be capable of doing a good job when and if it has more political power than now? We can go and on and maybe we will.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 11, 2017

The Pollyanna "Liberals" Were Wrong about Iran & Khomeini; Now Wrong about PLO/PA and the Muslim Brotherhood

A lot of the so-called "liberals" & "progressives" in the United States have long championed the causes of tyrants abroad, whether Stalin or Castro or --more recently-- the Muslim Brotherhood and so on and so forth. This has often been done by presenting the tyrants or would be tyrants as representing the democratic will of the people or as being liberal, progressive and tolerant themselves. A classic case of how this was done appeared not long after Khomeini's regime took power in Iran. The new regime was extolled for its civil libertarian commitment.

We now know that Khomeini and his successors were and are anything but devoted to liberal values, to civil liberties, democracy, etc. However, Kai Bird, a very prominent "leftist" and "progressive" in the 1960s and 1970s fought valiantly to present this false image of Khomeini & Co. to the American public. When you read Mr Bird, think of the academic and media advocates of the Iran regime or the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas or Fatah/PLO, and so on, today.

Bird wrote the following in an article that was featured on the front page of the "Liberal" weekly The Nation magazine [31 March 1979]:

. . .  there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished Constitution [of the brand new Iranian Islamic Republic] will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system. Minister of Information Nasser Menachi,  a close confidant of Bazargan and a man with impeccable civil libertarian credentials, told The Nation that "the new Constitution --which has been drafted by five foreign-trained jurists-- contains the strongest possible civil libertarian guarantees. . . . and Khomeini himself  has approved the document with but the most minor changes, a fact which should be read as an extremely good sign." The Ayatollah will reportedly have no formal office in the proposed Islamic Republic. Elections are scheduled to be held within several months after the adoption of the Constitution.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Isn't this all just too noble, too precious, too lofty to be believable? It hardly corresponds to how the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have actually ruled Iran.

Does everyone see the pattern in this excerpt here? Consider the style here against the background of the tens of thousands --or hundreds of thousands or millions-- of victims of the Iranian regime over the years? Look at the grand phrases in this not very long paragraph: liberal democratic system & impeccable civil libertarian credentials & the strongest possible civil libertarian guarantees. 

How many readers of Emet m'Tsiyon would want to depend upon the civil libertarian guarantees of the Iranian regime? Now just how is it that Kai Bird and his editors at The Nation could not foresee what the Khomeini regime would produce, a regime that tramples civil liberties and pays lip service to them at best? A regime that is a caricature of democracy where the leading ayatollah, called the Supreme Guide, has the final say on everything, whatever the parliament may think?

Why couldn't Bird and his The Nation friends understand that the books that Khomeini had written, books in which he expressed a desire for a political regime based on Islam, Shiite Islam, explained what he would do if and when he took power? That that was the kind of regime he would erect and that civil liberties would bow before the needs of the regime of ayatollahs implementing Islam as they saw it and interpreted it? Did they ask what would happen to ethnic and religious minorities in Iran, such as Jews, Bahais, or Sunni Muslims, for that matter? Did Bird & Co. ask how women would fare under the ayatollahs who would apply strict Shiite Muslim rules to them? Did they ask whether Khomeini's ostensible loyalty to or tolerance for democracy and civil liberties, and the comforting, liberal-sounding slogans that he and his associates threw out from time to time might not have been mere dissembling for the purpose of gaining and consolidating power?

Were Bird and his friends naive, ignorant, simpleminded or simply deceitful? We may ask the same question today about Washington policy specialists and American academics who promote the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizbullah or Hamas or Fatah or the so-called "palestine liberation organization."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now that we know what "liberal" establishment journalism and its predictions are worth in the United States -- and elsewhere, let's talk a little about Kai Bird. He was known as being hostile to Israel back in the 1960s, when that was less fashionable than today. He had been in Israel during his rather privileged childhood when his father, an American diplomat, and his family lived in the Jordanian-occupied sector of Jerusalem from which all Jews were driven out, starting in December 1947. Young Master Bird crossed the Armistice Line, the Green Line, every day that he went to school. This was the Anglican school on Street of the Prophets [רחוב הנביאים] in "west Jerusalem" under Israeli control. The school is still there although in the past 20 or 25 years it has raised its stone outer wall by three or four feet. Little Master Bird crossed on every school day the Mandelbaum Gate, actually a border crossing built partly over the home of a family named Mandelboym [the proper Yiddish pronunciation]. The house had been destroyed in the fighting in 1948. The colony of Westerners living in Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem was notorious in those days for being fanatically anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Bird and his family lived in the Sheikh Jarrah quarter near the Orient House, the American Colony Hotel, and the old Jewish neighborhoods of Shimon haTsadiq, Nahalat Shimon, and Siebenbergen Houses from which the Jewish residents had been driven out in December 1947 and January 1948.

From the Mandelboym Gate crossing Bird and his schoolmates from the Jordanian sector traveled down Tribes of Israel Street [Shivtey Yisra'el שבטי ישראל], formerly St George Street under the British, which name Jordan kept for the street on its side of the armistice line. The pupils traveled for about one-half kilometer down to Street of the Prophets, turning right into and traveling on it for about a kilometer or more. They were escorted, to my knowledge, by armed Israeli troops. But they were also protected by the power and prestige of the empires and governments that they and their families represented.

As to Kai Bird's honesty, I have read several reviews of his autobiography for this blog post, and I don't find any reference to his  activity with the American "New Left" in the 1960s, 1970s and afterwards. I have to conclude that he left that information out of his book. He apparently decided that references to his "New Left" activism would not be useful or beneficial to him or his political purposes.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish exile from Jerusalem [here]

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

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

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Erdogan's Turkey Goes for Teaching "Good Jihad"

If you are one of those who dislike President Trump, however much you may dislike him, remember all of Obama's kind gestures, his love of peaceful Islam, his friendship with Erdogan, his thwarted efforts to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and to keep it there, and so on. And you may mellow on Trump.

Obama was notoriously close to Erdogan in the first few years of his regime, so much so that he and Erdung were called BFFs [best female friends]. Obama was apparently in cahoots with Erdung over the Mavi Marmara siege-breaking affair [2010], among other things. Now the would-be sultan of a restored Ottoman Empire is introducing "good jihad" into Turkish schools. Excerpt translated below with original:

Starting with the return to school in September, the concept of "jihad" will be taught in most schools in the country, according to the new curriculum conceived by the Islamo-conservative government and made public on July 18. It is not a matter of learning holy war but rather "the good jihad," the jihad that exalts "love of the fatherland", Ismet Yilmaz, minister of national education, hastened to clarify. "Jihad exists in our religion and it is one of the duties of the ministry of education to see to it that this concept is taught in a correct and appropriate manner," he insisted.

À partir de la rentrée scolaire, en septembre, le concept de « djihad » sera enseigné dans la plupart des écoles du pays, selon le nouveau programme conçu par le gouvernement islamo-conservateur et rendu public mardi 18 juillet. Il n’est pas question d’apprendre la guerre sainte mais plutôt « le bon djihad », celui qui exalte « l’amour de la patrie », s’est empressé de préciser Ismet Yilmaz, le ministre de l’éducation nationale. « Le djihad existe dans notre religion et il est du devoir du ministère de l’éducation de veiller à ce que ce concept soit enseigné de façon juste et appropriée », a-t-il insisté.
Marie Jego, Istanbul, for Le Monde 7-28-2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More on Erdogan: here & here & here & here

The role of Qatar and Washington insiders in the Mavi Marmara affair here

Quality Turkish Education? Whither? [here]

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, May 29, 2017

The New York Times Gets into Serious Falsification Again -- Altering Quotes about Israel

We at Emet m'Tsiyon have already covered several cases where the overrated New York Times distorted facts. We showed how once the NYT changed the meaning of what Pope Francis said to Mahmoud Abbas [= Abu Mazen]. That was a serious falsification because it had the Pope declaring that Abbas was "an angel of peace." What the Pope actually said was that Abu Mazen "could be an angel of peace" [Lei possa essere un angelo della pace].That is, he could be one if he made peace with Israel.

The present case of falsifying a quote does not involve false translation but rather deliberately leaving out several words from a statement by President Trump. Here I thank CAMERA, the media monitor, for bringing this notable NYT falsehood to light.

Trump made a statement on 2 February of this year about Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria:
While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. (Emphasis added.)
Now a video on the NYT website produced by its Jerusalem-based journalists Ian Fisher and Camilla Schick, narrated by Fisher, left out the words in boldface which means that they were significantly altering the meaning of Trump's statement. Instead of what Trump said Fisher and Schick give us this truncated and therefore distorted and misleading version:
The White House had this to say back in February. "While we do not believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements [the missing words belong here] may not be helpful in achieving that goal." Trump publicly asked Mr. Netanyahu to exercise restraint on settlement building. . .
Tamar Sternthal of CAMERA explains the problems of distortion, done for what I see as clearly political partisan reasons [here]. That is, the Jerusalem-based journalists and the NY Times itself on the whole are partisans in favor of the PLO.

Basically, what Trump's actual statement said that it would be all right for Israel to expand the existing settlements, in terms of numbers of housing units, if that expansion did not go beyond the current boundaries of these settlements. Serious politically motivated distortion.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Also see the links below for more on NYTimes hatred of Jews and Israel:
1-- defense of Nazi sympathizer, Linda Sarsour [here]
2-- five NYT anti-Israel op eds -- hatred of Israel intensifies at the NYT [here]

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 26, 2017

What Does "Left" Mean Today? Is the Right-Left Spectrum Notion Anymore than a Fraud Nowadays?

Who said professors don't have  a sense of humor? Two professors wrote an article as a spoof on the pretentiousness and earnest absurdity of the rather new and novel field of Gender Studies. Their article, The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,”  claimed to prove that the penis, the male reproductive organ, was not only a leading cause of the medical condition called pregnancy, but of, among other things, climate change. Anyhow, soon after publication in the journal Cogent Social Sciences, they revealed their real names and that the article was a hoax. I personally think that they should have waited a while longer before revealing the reality in order to see how many fish --or dupes-- they could catch who might take the article seriously and quote from it in all seriousness with admiration for and in agreement with its novel thesis. Here is a quote from the original hoax essay:
 "Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change,”
Be that as it may, the online magazine for academics, Inside Higher Ed [Ed = education] ran an article describing the hoax and quoting from it liberally while discussing several related issues. This article in turn drew a good number of comments. One line of discussion was how the toilers in the field of Gender Studies, although identifying themselves as Left, neglected the traditional concerns of the Left:
Don't you all miss the days when the "academic left" was preoccupied with issues such as social formations and the class structure of contemporary capitalism, the relationship between the dominant economic order and the state, the analysis of ideological hegemony, the application of Marxist theory to contemporary social conflict, the anarchist critique of Marxian strategies for social change, labor history . . .  
This raises the question of just what meaning the label or term Left has today. Especially since its concerns have changed so much and some charge that it is too often preoccupied with what the critics call "Identity Politics." Some used a phrase of the poet William Blake who lived in the late 18th century when the factory, the steam-powered mill was just making its appearance. Blake hated early industrialization which he characterized with the phrase: dark, satanic mills. Here is my contribution to the discussion between the two broken lines:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It really is hard to know nowadays just what "Left" is and how it may be different from "Right." Furthermore, the gender studies and queer theorists seem to have no time to study the Dark, Satanic Mills that actually exist today in the inevitably progressive 21st century. How about the building sites in Qatar for the 2022 world soccer championhip as today's counterpart --or worse-- to Blake's dark, satanic mills? So are the gender and queer theorists really Left, in the traditional (patriarchal?) sense of the term, as they neglect the oppressed proletarians of Qatar? Indeed, an earnest lady of the philosophical persuasion prestidigitating in the gender studies field informed us a few years ago that Hamas and Hizbullah were parts of the "Global Left". Yet precisely Hamas was at the time (and probably still is) a recipient of $$ billions from Qatar. Now Qatar, besides overworking --sometimes to death-- the toiling gastarbeiter from Nepal and India, etc, enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at least for its own citizens which the laborers are not. 
Although Lenin defined imperialism as not only the highest stage of capitalism but as any very large concentration of capital --a definition that surely fits Qatar & some of its neighbors on the Persian Gulf-- our philosophical theorist of what is Left today failed to see the contradiction in her own labeling of Hamas as Left. Since it is an Islamist organization funded in large part by Qatar, an imperialist state by Lenin's definition anyway, Hamas would seem to be an imperialist cats paw.
On the other hand, the old style Marxist-Leninists too might quite possibly have failed to apply Lenin's definition of imperialism consistently and might also have been reluctant to define Qatar as imperialist. And I certainly reject Marx and Lenin's notion of historical inevitability. Which leaves us with prejudice, preference, and selectivity marching forward hand in hand with new-fangled theories.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is a comment that partly expresses some of my thinking about the meaning and purpose of today's "Left":
. . .  the American "Left's" preoccupation with identity politics has been a major distraction from the economic and critical methodologies noted above by Goodsensecynic [= another commenter-Eliyahu]. Maybe we're talking "post-Marxism" but, if we are in that period, then Capital can continue to have its way with most workers and citizens, no matter what their race, color, creed, or gender. The "hoax" article is, of course, about gender.
Capital has always offered "bread and circuses" to the masses (although not always the bread); chariot races have been replaced by NASCAR.
The implications of all this are obvious in the current state of academia . . .          [Frank Tomasulo]

In my view, circuses today are more the demonstrations of the Occupy Movement than of NASCAR.
The Left in the 21st century -- is it any more than pane et circenses, the Roman practice of giving the plebeians Bread and Circuses? Does the left-right notion do any more than confuse and mislead the public and the student of politics in our first fifth of the 21st century?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

--More on Qatar as well as on how certain capitalist institutions finance "leftist" organizations, especially if they are anti-Israel/anti-Jewish [here]
--Qatar's beneficiary, the Hamas Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip [here]
-- The Qatar paradox, anti-American & pro-American at the same time [here]
-- How Qatar's royal broadcasting enterprise, Al-Jazeera, broadcasts anti-Israel "leftists" [here]

Labels: , , ,

Friday, May 19, 2017

Abbas Lied in Washington when He Claimed that His "palestinian authority" Was Promoting Peace Education for Arab Children

This post consists mainly in quotes from Palestinian Media Watch showing the mendacity and hypocrisy of Mahmoud Abbas and his distaste for peace with Israel:

The PA leadership publicly proclaims that it is promoting peace education. Mahmoud Abbas recently announced during a press conference with US Pres. Donald Trump: "I affirm to you that we are raising our children and our grandchildren on a culture of peace." [White House Press Conference, May 3, 2017]
But Abbas' embracing a "culture of peace" in Washington is meaningless when his schools in Ramallah embrace a culture of terror. Indeed, Palestinian youth themselves make a mockery of Abbas' claim, as children in the schools named for terrorists declare that those terrorists are their role models.
[the Palestinian Authority habitually names schools and other public places and institutions after Arab terrorists & Arab Nazi collaborators. The paragraphs from PMW below list schools named after prominent palestinian Arab Nazi collaborators]

The following is a list of schools the PA has named after Nazi collaborators:
The PA has named one school after Nazi collaborator and war criminal Amin Al-Husseini.
1.The Amin Al-Husseini Elementary School - El-Bireh
Amin Al-Husseiniwas the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the British Mandate. During World War II he moved to Berlin, where he was a Nazi collaborator and an associate of Hitler. Al-Husseini was on Yugoslovia's list of wanted war criminals, and was responsible for a Muslim SS division that murdered thousands of Serbs and Croats. When the Nazis offered to free some Jewish children, Al-Husseini fought against their release, and as result, 5000 children were sent to the gas chambers.
Amin Al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941)
The PA has named two schools after Nazi collaborator Hassan Salameh.
2.The Hassan Salameh Junior High School for Girls - Gaza
3. Hassan Salameh Elementary School - Gaza
Hassan Salameh was a leader of Arab gangs in the Lod and Jaffa region in the 1930s and 1940s. He was a loyal follower of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who spent World War II in Berlin supporting the Nazi war effort. In 1941, Salameh was recruited to be a Nazi agent, and in 1944, he was sent on a mission by the Nazis in the British Mandate of Palestine, with the goal of starting an Arab revolt against the British and poisoning Tel Aviv's water sources. The plot was discovered and thwarted by the British. In 1947, Salameh was appointed by the Mufti as Deputy Commander of the "Holy Jihad" Army that fought Israel in the 1948 War of Independence. In June 1948, he was killed in battle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This story of Arab Nazi Collaboration should be more widely known but it is not. There are those who want to make the world  forget thi ugly chapter in Arab history.
See more on Arab Nazi collaborators on our blog:
The anniversary of Amin el-Husseini's first visit with Hitler [here]

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Surprise! A Reasonable Article about the Alleged Trump Leak

James Freeman explains why it is not wise to get too worked up over the alleged leak by President Trump to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Note that those who were present at the meeting between Trump and Putin deny the claims made by the Washington Post's article. The alleged sources for the article, on the other hand, are all anonymous.

I would add another point. If there were any information improperly given to Putin --if any-- we don't know exactly what it was. But it is very likely that more damage was caused by all the reports, truthful or not, that claim to divulge parts of the content and/or the source of the alleged info. For instance, ABC news was reported to have broadcast that the info in question came from Israel and that its source was an Israeli operative planted inside Da`ash. If there is such an Israeli agent, then such a broadcast was more likely to have endangered the agent than whatever Trump said.

Bear in mind that once in the Bush2 administration and at least once in the obama admin Washington intelligence personalities gave out info that was said to have harmed Israel. Those instances are forgotten.

If "news" outlets like ABC were so concerned with intelligence security, why then did they report on what they claim Israel's intel services have been doing? Or was Israel's name dragged in in order to create animosity and suspicion between the pro-Israel community and the president?

Another point is the credibility of the original "news" outlet for the story. It was first reported by the Washington Post. But the WAPO has been very hostile to Trump for many months and has devoted a great many pages and barrels of ink to besmirching him. For instance, I get an email from the WAPO just about every day. It contains links to stories in the newspaper that supposedly might be interesting to me --  or more precisely, to the average reader. For months now, I have seen a dozen or a score of articles every day knocking or besmirching Trump on all sorts of grounds. You can understand why I don't pay much attention to those "reports" which may or may not be true, but are often trivial in substance. In any event, they certainly become boring soon enough. 

Michael Ledeen points out another problem. Trump is facing hordes of Obama holdovers who are still in high positions. And ready to sabotage his administration and his policies at every turn [here].
Here is another issue: Powerful  press organs such as the Washington Post and the New York Time besmirch his image every day helped by partisan media "news" outlets like CNN. The Times called for impeachment of Trump, one complaint being that he lies. Well, Obama lied early and often. Yet the NYT & WAPO seldom if ever saw fit to disqualify Obama on those grounds. Could we be witnessing an attempted coup d'etat?

Freeman's article appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

McMaster and Commander

Trump’s national security adviser takes on the Washington Post’s anonymous sources.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday.
 National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
James Freeman
Former government officials have been demanding anonymity from the Washington Post in order to discuss a meeting they did not attend at the White House. President Trump’s National Security Adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, who did attend the meeting, has been going on the record this week along with other attendees to knock down the resulting story. Yet much of the press still seems to credit the Post’s unnamed non-attendees.
Here’s the lede from the Post:
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
On Monday evening Gen. McMaster said in response:
The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The President and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources. And I was in the room. It didn’t happen.
On Tuesday the national security adviser elaborated on his remarks and took questions from reporters. At his Tuesday appearance in the White House briefing room, Gen. McMaster called Mr. Trump’s discussion “wholly appropriate” and consistent with the normal sharing of information on terror threats that occurs in high-level meetings with representatives of foreign nations. He said he was not concerned by Mr. Trump’s disclosures and had not contacted any foreign governments about them.
The anonymous sources quoted by the Post, on the other hand, appear to have very deep concerns, and the Post says that some of them even know what was said at the meeting. But many of the story’s harshest critiques of the President come from people who were not only not at the meeting, but are no longer in government:
“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
Here’s another excerpt from the Post story specifically focused on the President’s discussion of a particular plot hatched by Islamic State:
“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
Now why are such subjects sensitive enough to require anonymity but not sensitive enough to avoid discussing with a Washington Post reporter? We normally think of current government employees needing to remain anonymous while leaking data to the press in order to keep their jobs, but it’s not immediately clear why all the former officials also deserve anonymity in this case.
It’s possible that the sources in this story understand that people not named Clinton may be punished if they are caught mishandling sensitive information they obtained while they were in government. But one would think that a former official could publicly opine that the President is recklessly sharing information without disclosing any particular details of intelligence or the way it is collected. This raises the possibility that the sensitivity problem relates to a source’s current and future employment rather than previous government service.
Not every organization enjoys having its employees publicly accuse the President of endangering national security. And even people without an institutional affiliation understand they run the risk of offending clients when they publicly stand behind a controversial idea. But of course the grant of immunity by a reporter denies readers the opportunity to evaluate sources for themselves and consider their possible agendas.
Readers can’t tell whether the former officials quoted by the Post are retired or work for defense contractors or think tanks or political operations—or perhaps at firms that have nothing to do with government.
But readers are able to evaluate H.R. McMaster. He has spent a highly distinguished career defending the United States. And he was at the meeting. And he’s on the record.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Related topics:
Seth Rich: He revealed DNC emails to Wikileaks through an American Wikileaks associate in London. Rich was murdered in the summer of 2016:

Democratic Party hypocrisy in regard to leaking information to other powers, hostile powers

Monday, February 20, 2017

BBC Equals Fake News -- Gavin Esler & Dateline London

The Dateline London program on BBC is usually interesting even if the guests, journalists stationed in London, British or foreign, usually stay within certain acceptable or conventional bounds of permitted opinion. Hence, the opinions expressed about Israel and issues connected with Israel stay within the narrow framework of conventional Western anti-Israel opinion -- or better said, within the bounds of anti-Israel prejudice. Of course they are free to express their opinions. They are free to affirm fake news, however false it may be. Now, with charges of "fake news" flying in all directions, it is relevant to discuss the falsehoods of the BBC, not only of the guests on the Dateline London discussion panel.

We are long  used to the BBC's anti-Jewish prejudice, which was expressed during the Shoah by avoiding reporting on the ongoing mass murder of Jews by the German Nazi forces. And we also keep in mind that the BBC's foreign reporting is supervised by the Foreign Office, as Shmul Zigelboym noted during the Holocaust.

So it was no surprise to hear Gavin Esler, moderator of Dateline London, utter several lies that fit into the smear-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-PLO narrative. In the middle, approximately, of the show broadcast on 18 & 19 February 2017, Esler introduced the topic of one-state or two-states to supposedly settle the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. He said that there were supporters of the one-state solution on both sides, Israeli and Arab. Then he said that Israeli supporters of that "solution" wanted the one-state to be Jewish, whereas Arabs ("Palestinians" in his lingo) wanted "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". This presentation of the desires of both sides --to an audience devoted to equality and democracy-- makes Israelis sound bigoted and Palestinian Arabs sound broad-minded, democratic, egalitarian, and liberal.

Now, how accurate or honest was Esler's description? First, have the many mass murder terrorist attacks against Jews by Palestinian Arabs over the years, and especially in the wave of murderous terrorism that began about one and a half years ago in September 2015, demonstrated a desire to live together in peace with Jews on the part of the Arabs, who are --by the way-- an overwhelmingly Muslim population? Second, how is it that, whereas no Arab state is truly democratic and all but Lebanon affirm the supremacy of Islam or Islamic law in their constitutions, that the Palestinian Arabs, unlike the other Arabs, want a democratic government with equality for persons of all religions and all ethnic groups living within the state -- quoth Esler? That would be very curious indeed and would demand special scholarly investigation -- if true. Thirdly, the treatment of Arabic-speaking Christians in the Palestinian Authority is bad and does not indicate respect for their equal rights. Fourth, is there any documentation of the supposedly democratic inclinations of the Palestinian Arabs and their putative statelet, the Palestinian Authority? Can Esler or anyone else supply a reliable public opinion poll to that effect?

In fact, it is widely known that the Palestinian Authority is far from democratic. It is far from respecting basic human and civil rights for its own people-- let alone Jews. Just look at documentation provided by PMW (Palestinian Media Watch) demonstrating the hate agitation of the PA government in Ramallah headed by Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen], as well its financial corruption regarding its own people. There is also the record of anti-Israel hate agitation in Arab media generally --although there are exceptions-- provided by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) And most pertinent to the discussion, the PA has drawn up a constitution for its not yet existent state. This document like Arab state constitutions generally, provides for the supremacy of Islam and Islamic law. What exactly does the PA-proposed constitution for a future state comprise?

The draft constitution of the planned state affirms: 
“This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6). [emph. added[Prof Shmuel Trigano pointed to these articles of the draft constitution]
Now, it is notorious that the status of the non-Muslim, the dhimmi, in the Islamic state is an inferior one. The section of Islamic law that deals with dhimmis is called the dhimma and it provides for the regular inferiority of the dhimmi in many areas of life, such as the special taxes borne by the dhimmi and his regular humiliation, his worth as half of a Muslim in that his testimony in court is worth half of a Muslim's testimony, and so on and so forth [see dhimma rules here & here].

Further, Esler claimed that the "Palestinians" who wanted a one-state solution wanted it to be "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". Whereas Islamic law, shariy`ah holds that non-Muslims, dhimmis, are inferior, one wonders whether there are more than a handful of genuine, loyal Arab Muslims who want a truly democratic liberal state where Jews have equal rights. And as to living "side by side," Jews in Arab-Muslim-ruled lands were often forced to live in ghettos, as in Christian Europe up to the French Revolution and after it in many places. I have not found a public opinion poll of Palestinian Arabs who both want a single state and want it to be democratic with equal rights for Jews. If Esler or anyone knows of such a poll, please publicize it and send us a link. I will be glad to post such a link. However, I did find something:
Saeb Erekat, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said Wednesday that the only alternative to a two-state solution is one state with equal democratic rights for all. [here]
Now Saeb Erikat is an expert propagandist, a liar and double-talker. The liberal affirmations that he makes when speaking English are typically contradicted by what he says to his own people in Arabic. So his sincerity in speaking of an egalitarian, democratic state is highly dubious, especially if we take into account how his Palestinian Authority treats its own Arab population. And bear in mind that he subscribes to the draft constitution quoted above which is an Islamic supremacist document. Furthermore, it seems likely that when Esler was saying that Palestinian Arabs who wanted a single state wanted it to be democratic and egalitarian with Jews and Arabs living side by side, he was thinking about Erikat's statement above which had been published just days before on 15 February 2017. If Esler believes one word uttered by Erikat then he is a fool. But maybe believing in the likes of Erikat is a rule at the BBC.

Be that as it may, how about Jews living in the same state with Palestinian Arabs? Could they live or reside in such a state? As far as Erikat's relative, Maen Areikat [the spelling difference is immaterial] is concerned, Jews would not have the right to live in a "Palestinian state."

INTERVIEWER: So you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew.
AREIKAT: Absolutely. No, I'm not saying to transfer every Jew. I'm saying to transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
INTERVIEWER: Any Jew who is in the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
AREIKAT: Absolutely.
[here & here]

The "Palestine" that Areikat wants to construct would include Jewish holy places and cities that the Jews have long traditionally considered holy, like Jerusalem, especially the Old City, and Hebron. The Jewish holy places that he would foreclose Jews from living close to include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Simon the Just in Jerusalem [outside & north of the Old City], the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and so on. Given the record of the Kingdom of Jordan before the Six Day War in preventing Jews from visiting the Jewish holy places, access to which had been stipulated in the 1949 armistice accords,  the projected "State of Palestine" would likewise prevent Jews from visiting Jewish holy places.

We see that public opinion among Arabs in the Palestinin Authority is not liberal and not eager to live in equality with Jews. And therefore, Gavin Esler was broadcasting fake news. Nothing new for the BBC.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 09, 2017

European Union Tortures Greek Fellow Europeans - What Can Israel Expect from the EU?

In January 2012 the EuroZone, the countries sharing the single currency, the euro, demanded extreme austerity from Greece. One of the provisions of the set of demands on Greece was to reduce medical benefits for the Greek population [veda qui].

We can now see the effect of these draconian demands. The French daily Le Figaro reported one and a half years ago, July 2015, on the gloomy picture. That is when Greece accepted a further set of harsh austerity demands by the EuroGroup which runs the EuroZone. I have no doubt that the situation now is worse than in 2015. Le Figaro writes:
Elevators out of service, tired greenish linoleum, a corridor burdened with patients abandoned on rolling beds. Over-aged medical material and medications that are running out. Austerity. At the Evangelismos Hospital in Athens, "We know what it is." . . .   
We hear them speaking harshly to each other . . .  "Go in front of me? Do you take yourself for a German?" exclaims an irritated fifty-year old  waiting his turn at the window where medicines are given out. "We're all worn out," another patient makes an excuse. "We mustn't complain," sighs Denise, an epileptic, 40 years old who subsists with her daughter  thanks to a disability pension of 300 euros per month. "We still have free medications." . . . . "I try to survive as best I can," chief cardiologist Dr Ilias Zarkos confides.  "At the  age of fifty-five I earn 1320 euros per month, as against 1600 euros four years ago. . . . In the past five years, we have all had our salaries reduced, and 20% of the staff went on retirement without being replaced. . . . Who would want to work under these conditions? Greece is now naked." "Every year the subsidies and equipment provided to the hospital are reduced by 15%," Dr Sioras continues. [Le Figaro, 15 Juillet 2015]
That is the state of Greek hospitals as of July 2015. That is the result of years of EU austerity treatment for the original debt crisis, whereas Greek debt as of July 2015 and as of now too, is worse, is higher than in 2010 when the debt crisis first came to light. Sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease.

If the Greeks were perhaps an exotic tribe in Africa or on the island of Borneo or some decidedly Third World country, would the EU be so callous to their suffering? Would the hospitals have to make do with short supplies and out of date equipment and supplies and reduced staff? Wouldn't Europe's supposed charitable and humanitarian instincts take over and wouldn't the cries for help be answered? Where is the solidarity for fellow Europeans, whereas solidarity is supposed to be a fundamental principle of the EU? Indeed, solidarity may be located in the same place as another EU principle, transparency, another EU value which is honored as much in the breach as the observance.

Besides, when the Palestinian Authority, a new form of the old PLO, is short of funds, somehow the EU finds the money. But the same generosity does not show up for the Greeks, for their fellow Europeans who are suffering. Nor does the supposed EU principle of transparency come into effect when it comes to funding a whole array of anti-Israel NGOs .....

The EuroGroup policy toward their fellow European Greeks is harsh and callous, and unproductive. What is their attitude toward Israel? Do they any longer recognize the Jewish right to live throughout the Land of Israel (Palestine in their parlance) west of the Jordan,  as the international community had decided in 1922 in the Mandate for Palestine issued to the UK for the purpose of erecting the Jewish National Home?  Today old commitments are forgotten. In fact, prominent EU member states voted at the UN Security Council for a resolution calling it a crime for Israelis to live east of the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line, even in Jerusalem, a city that has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, whereas all Jews were ethnically cleansed from parts of Jerusalem --including the Old City's Jewish Quarter-- that were under Arab control after the 1947-1949 Israeli War of Independence. So the EU states represented in the UN SC favored apartheid against Jews by proclaiming that Jewish residence east of the Green Line, in Jerusalem too, was illegal according to international law, no less. That is what UN SC resolution 2334 has to say. Those EU states want to return Jews to their traditional status in Europe in the Middle Ages where often Jews were forced to live in ghettoes. Indeed, this demonstrates the cyclical nature of history. Out of the ghetto, now back to the ghetto.

Israel can hope for nothing decent at the upcoming French-sponsored "peace conference" in Paris. Bear in mind that the words, working-for-peace, can really mean working for war. There are strong grounds for assuming that the Paris war conference due to start on January 15 is meant to produce a resolution that will be taken to the UN Security Council before Donald Trump is inaugurated as US president on 20 January 2017 in order to prevent him from interfering in the gang up on Israel which Trump has already defined as "unfair". The Paris-to-New York time schedule is tight but possible. As the example of Euro treatment of Greece demonstrates, the EU and its member states can be not only stingy but harsh and cruel. Can Israel expect better from the EU after nearly 2000 years of discrimination and oppression of Jews and often of persecution?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For more on the Eurozone's treatment of Greece, as well as the contrast between favoritism for the PLO/PA contrasted with stinginess with Greece, see here & here .

A quote from Il Sole-24 Ore (30 January 2012) on proposed reductions of medical coverage for Greeks:
Sul fronte previdenziale, la Troika fa notare che il 50% dei medicinali rimborsati dal sistema sanitario pubblico è generico, con prezzi bassi (e che vi è quindi spazio per ridurre l'esborso di denaro pubblico). [Il Sole-24 Ore, 30 Gennaio 2012  qui

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 02, 2017

The Sacred Anti-Israel Narrative & Ukraine's Vote at the Security Council

Why did Obama and his gang want so much for Ukraine to vote for the noxious UN Security Council resolution 2334? The resolution would have passed anyway. The one vote of Ukraine would not have made a difference if the Security Council vote on the resolution would have been 13 for, 0 against, and 2 abstentions, instead of one (the United States itself). What would have been the damage if the Ukrainian government had been left alone to make its own decision on the matter? Even if Ukraine had cast its lone vote against the resolution? Yet Vice President Joe Biden was assigned and deputed to call the Ukrainian president, Pan Poroshenko, and demand that he order the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN to vote for the resolution.

 Now at this point the reader will have noted that I do not try to prove that Biden called Poroshenko to tell him to change the Ukrainian vote from the expected "abstain" to "for." Several reports in English substantiate that Biden made such a call. The best substantiated report that I know of is that of Vladislav Davidzon on the Tablet website. One of the interesting things that Davidzon says is:
A wealth of evidence is now emerging that, far from simply abstaining from a UN vote, which is how the Administration and its press circle at first sought to characterize its actions, the anti-Israel resolution was actively vetted at the highest levels of the U.S. Administration, which then led a pressure campaign --both directly and  through Great Britain  —to convince other countries to vote in favor of it.
 So we see that the US government under the so-called "liberal" US president Obama believes in housing/residential segregation for Jews, that is, for restricting where Jews are allowed to live as both Christian and Muslim rulers did during the Middle Ages and afterwards. These restricted Jewish residential areas could be called a ghetto, as in Europe, or a mellah, as in North Africa, or hareth el-Yahud in some other places under Islamic rule, and perhaps by other names. And residential segregation of Blacks in the United States was sometimes called the jimcrow system and in South Africa apartheid. But the question remains, Why did Obama and his gang or the State Department or whoever makes such decisions in Washington want the Ukraine too to vote in favor. Davidzon reports something interesting:
According to one U.S. national security source, the Obama Administration needed a 14-0 vote to justify what the source called “the optics” of its own abstention.
The optics, that is, the visual impression made by its own vote and the other votes. This is an interesting observation by a U.S. national security source. So let's develop our own theory. The Obama gang and the US State Dept and national security establishment were concerned about visual impressions, about appearances. I would say that they wanted to promote a narrative, as they often or usually do when it comes to Israel. They wanted this narrative to influence and be adopted by Americans, especially Americans sympathetic to Israel, and in Israel too especially among the so-called or self-styled "peace camp." They wanted Israel to appear isolated, totally isolated, isolated from all powers but the USA itself. They wanted people to see Israel as isolated and as isolating itself by --among other things-- allowing Jews to build homes across the 1949 armistice line, the so-called Green Line.

At the same time, the narrative says: We, the USA or the Obama Administration, are your friends, your real friends and your only friends. You can only depend on us. So you have to do whatever we say. Therefore, the vote in the Security Council had to be unanimous except for the United States itself. Therefore, it was essential for "the optics" that Ukraine too vote in favor of the resolution. Of course, the United States and the UK had to cover their tracks in promoting and working out the resolution. It had to seem that it was the initiative of other states, although the New Zealand foreign minister had more or less let the cat out of the bag in mid-November in a little noticed interview with a daily in his own country.

It would be best for it to be seen as an Arab initiative that was supported by the Enlightened World, the world of morality and humane and decent  concern beyond Israel's boundaries. This latter line is a favorite of Israel's Peace Camp or Left or what may be called the Anti-National Camp. The Peace Campers used to often write in their newspapers and other publications, of which HaArets is the main one today, that the Enlightened World --ha`olam hana'or העולם הנאור-- which may exist somewhere over the rainbow, is terribly angry with us for disobeying international law in all sorts of ways, among them, for allowing Jews to live beyond the Green Line, where in fact thousands of Jews had been living before the 1947-1948 Israeli War of Independence in which all Jews were driven out of areas captured and held by the Egyptian army or by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, now Jordan. Those Arab-held areas were judenrein after that war, to use a Geman term referring to places and/or countries ethnically cleansed of Jews. Jews were fleeing Arab attacks in the areas later held by Jordan and Egypt as early as December 1947. But our Peace Camp demonstrates its loyalty to State Department and Foreign Office and Quai d'Orsay demands --and later those of the EU-- by scolding Israelis and their government that they must not defy the wishes of the Enlightened World. And the West is Enlightened.

At the same time, the poor "palestinians", the Arabs who never considered themselves a separate, distinct people or nationality before the mid-1960s when the PLO was founded, are perpetually oppressed and persecuted by Israelis or by Israel, the collective Jew, whereas Jews have long been hated in the European Christian and Muslim Arab traditions. Nowadays, Israel the collective Jew takes the place of "the evil Jews" of days gone by.

For the purposes of the narrative, the UN SC vote had to be seen as initiated by others (such as New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela) and that the Obama administration only came along for the ride and that the US was forced to abstain rather than veto because even the US cannot stand against the conscience of the world and the enlightened consensus. And they were looking for the reaction that they did in fact get from Israel's domestic pro-fascist Peace Camp. But they were saying to all Israelis and to Jews abroad as well: We are your last and only friends. But we might abandon you too if you don't do what we say.

So it must have been annoying to the State Department-CIA crowd that Prime Minister Netanyahu exposed their game. Which weakens the impact of the 14-0 vote. Which spoils the narrative. That's a reason to hate Netanyahu.
The gambit reminds me of the original explanation for the Benghazi incident 11 September 2012, that it started as a spontaneous demonstration [on 9-11 to be sure] against a mysterious video which may or may not have denigrated the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Recall too that at first the official or semi-official reference to the video was that  it was made by so-and-so, an Israeli (I forget the name offered at the time). When the Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren said at the time through his embassy  that there was no Israeli by that name, he took the wind out of those official sails. Then the video was officially or semi-officially blamed on a person of similar name identified by the media as an Egyptian Copt, that is, a Christian. If he had been identified as an Israeli and that claim had been allowed to stand, then officialdom and their subservient media would have blamed Israel for the killing of the ambassador and the other Americans at Benghazi, at least by insinuation. Those Islamists in Libya were understandably reacting to the Jewish-made video, the White House and national security council would have spread around, if only by insinuation. It was all Netanyahu's fault. Or all Israel's fault or all the Jews' fault. By insinuation.
I am not so sure about the story of the Egyptian Copt, either. It was very much like planting a story of a blood libel. But part of the warfare to bring down Israel is the Narrative, that is, psychological warfare -- which can be very potent in the hands of experts.

- - - - - - - - -
See Vladislav Davidzon [here]
Jonathan Hoffman provides more insight into the New Zealand foreign minister, Martin McCully [here]
Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle of London, supplies background to the British role in the resolution. He writes that British support for it, including helping to draft it to make it more generally acceptable, was the work of permanent Foreign & Commonwealth Office officials, not of Theresa May's government [here], which --I add-- later on criticized John Kerry's speech of late December that was very hostile to Israel, as well as refusing to sign the final communique of the French "peace" conference in Paris on 15 January 2017 and opposing adoption of the communique by the EU Council.

Labels: , , , ,