Extent of the US Betrayal of Israel, Part I

Few Americans are aware of the pressure the Obama administration is placing on Israel to, in effect, commit national suicide in its conflict with the terrorist regime in Gaza.  Since the US has, up until now, given Israel great support economically and with munitions and military hardware, we have considerable influence on that nation, the only one in the Middle East that stands for and practices western principles of universal human rights.

The following column by Caroline Glick, an Israeli, details the extent of our deceit.  The article is a long one, so I am presenting it in two parts. Go to the link to read it all, or see part II tomorrow.

Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi Alliance

By Caroline Glick - August 23, 2014 RealClearPolitics

Hamas’s war with Israel is not a stand-alone event. It is happening in the context of the vast changes that are casting asunder old patterns of behavior and strategic understandings as actors in the region begin to reassess the threats they face.

Hamas was once funded by Saudi Arabia and enabled by Egypt. Now the regimes of these countries view it as part of a larger axis of Sunni jihad that threatens not only Israel, but them.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its state sponsors Qatar and Turkey, are the key members of this alliance structure. Without their support Hamas would have gone down with the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt last summer. As it stands, all view Hamas’s war with Israel as a means of reinstating the Brotherhood to power in that country.

To achieve a Hamas victory, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood are using Western support for Hamas against Israel. If the US and the EU are able to coerce Egypt and Israel to open their borders with Gaza, then the Western powers will hand the jihadist axis a strategic victory.

The implications of such a victory would be dire.

Hamas is ideologically indistinguishable from Islamic State. Like Islamic State, Hamas has developed mass slaughter and psychological terrorization as the primary tools in its military doctrine. If the US and the EU force Israel and Egypt to open Gaza’s borders, they will enable Hamas to achieve strategic and political stability in Gaza. As a consequence, a post-war Gaza will quickly become a local version of Islamic State-controlled Mosul.

In the first instance, such a development will render life in southern Israel too imperiled to sustain. The Western Negev, and perhaps Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, will become uninhabitable.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. If, as the US demands, Israel allows Gaza to reconnect with Judea and Samaria, in short order Hamas will dominate the areas. Militarily, the transfer of even a few of the thousands of rocket-propelled grenades Hamas has in Gaza will imperil military forces and civilians alike.

IDF armored vehicles and armored civilian buses will be blown to smithereens.

Whereas operating from Gaza, Hamas needed the assistance of the Obama administration and the Federal Aviation Administration to shut down Ben-Gurion Airport, from Judea and Samaria, all Hamas would require are a couple of hand-held mortars.

Jordan will also be directly threatened.

From Egypt’s perspective, a Hamas victory in the war with Israel that connects Gaza to Sinai will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamic State and other allies. Such a development represents a critical threat to the regime.

And this brings us to Islamic State itself. It couldn’t have grown to its current monstrous proportions without the support of Qatar and Turkey.

Islamic State is obviously interested in expanding its conquests. Since it views itself as a state, its next move must be one that enables it to take over a national economy. The raid on Mosul’s central bank will not suffice to finance its operations for very long.

At this point, Islamic State wishes to avoid an all-out confrontation with Iran, so moving into southern Iraq is probably not in the cards. US forces in Kuwait, and the strength and unity of purpose of the Jordanian military, probably take both kingdoms off Islamic State’s chopping block for now.

This leaves Saudi Arabia, or parts of it, as a likely next target for Islamic State expansion.

Islamic State’s current operations in Lebanon, which threaten the Saudi-supported regime there, indicate that Lebanon, at a minimum, is also at grave risk.

Then there is Iran. Iran is not a member of the Sunni jihadist axis. But when it comes to Israel and the non-jihadist regimes, it has cooperated with it.

Iran has funded, trained and armed Hamas for the past decade. It views Hamas’s war with Israel in the same light as it viewed its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah’s war with Israel eight years ago.

Both in Iraq and Syria, Iran and Islamic State have shown little interest in making one another their primary target. Turkey and Qatar have often served as Iran’s supporters in the Sunni world.

This is the context in which Israel is fighting its war with Hamas. And due to this context, two interrelated strategically significant events have occurred since the war began.

The first relates to the US.

The Obama administration’s decision to side with the members of the jihadist axis against Israel by adopting their demand to open Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt has served as the final nail in the coffin of America’s strategic credibility among its traditional regional allies.

As the US has stood with Hamas, it has also maintained its pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. The US’s position in these talks is to enable the mullocracy to follow North Korea’s path to a nuclear arsenal. The non-jihadist Sunni states share Israel’s conviction that they cannot survive a nuclear armed Iran.

Finally, President Barack Obama’s refusal to date to take offensive action to destroy Islamic State in Iraq and Syria demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states that under Obama, the US would rather allow Islamic State to expand into their territory and destroy them than return US military forces to Iraq.

In other words, Obama’s pro-Hamas-, pro-Iran- and pro-Muslim Brotherhood-axis policies, along with his refusal to date to take effective action in Iraq and Syria to obliterate Islamic State, have convinced the US’s traditional allies that for the next two-and-a-half years, not only can they not rely on the US, they cannot discount the possibility of the US taking actions that harm them.

It is in the face of the US’s shift of allegiances under Obama that the non-jihadist Sunni regimes have begun to reevaluate their ties to Israel. Until the Obama presidency, the Saudis and Egyptians felt secure in their alliance with the US. Consequently, they never felt it necessary or even desirable to consider Israel as a strategic partner.

Under the US’s strategic protection, the traditional Sunni regimes had the luxury of maintaining their support for Palestinian terrorists and rejecting the notion of strategic cooperation with Israel, whether against Iran, al-Qaida or any other common foe.

So sequestered by the US, Israel became convinced that the only way it could enjoy any benefit from its shared strategic interests with its neighbors was by first bowing to the US’s long-held obsession with strengthening the PLO. This has involved surrendering land, political legitimacy and money to the terror group still committed to Israel’s destruction.

The war with Hamas has changed all of this.

Another Instance of Obama's Duplicity on Israel

A new Wall Street Journal report reveals that President Barack Obama's administration blocked a shipment of missiles to Israel in late July and tightened additional weapons shipment procedures to Israel, revealing increasing tensions between the two governments.

The U.S. decision to tighten arms transfers to Israel comes as the UK threatens similar actions. On Tuesday, the British government announced the suspension of 12 arms export licenses to Israel if fighting resumed in Gaza.

The Wednesday night report cites officials in the Obama administration who say Israel had requested a large number of Hellfire missiles directly through military-to-military channels, for which no additional administration approvals are required. An initial batch of the missiles was about to be shipped, according to sources in Israel and the U.S. Congress.

At that point, the administration stepped in and put the transfer on hold. Top White House officials instructed various U.S. military agencies to consult with the U.S. State Department before approving any additional arms requests from Israel.

The decision to clamp down on future transfers was the equivalent of "the United States saying 'the buck stops here. Wait a second. …It's not OK anymore,'" said one official. 

An Israeli defense official confirmed the reports, saying, "The U.S. delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli air force" in the face of “national tension" with Israel.

Obama has not been on the same page as Israel in terms of Israel’s operation in Gaza, making various attempts to press Israel into accepting a truce with Hamas, even under terms unpalatable to the Israeli government.

After one instance where America allegedly pressured Israel into a ceasefire that was violated within 90 minutes by a Hamas attack which killed several Israeli soldiers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told the administration "not to ever second guess me again."

According to U.S. officials cited in The Wall Street Journal report, a Wednesday night phone call between Obama and Netanyahu was "particularly combative."

A turning point appeared to be Israel’s July 30 IDF strike on terrorists adjacent to a UN school, which the U.S. slammed as “disgraceful.”

In response, the IDF confirmed it targeted Islamic Jihad terrorists in the vicinity of the school and provided video evidence that Hamas had fired rockets from inside schools.

The U.S. administration has since required White House and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel, officials say.

Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each case is now subject to review, slowing the approval process--and signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny.

Reaction from HotAir:

If the standard review process was followed, then why was the White House “caught off guard”? Isn’t it incumbent on the Obama administration to know how the sale and transfer process works?  Israel had conducted a ground war — much to the chagrin of Obama and his “policymakers” — for a few weeks. Why wouldn’t anyone have expected Israel to replenish its supplies? Surely there are a few people who may have at least watched Patton if not studied Clausewitz in this administration. Resupply is a basic function for any army at war.

Surprise in this case springs from willful ignorance, as Jeff Dunetz notes. On Morning Joe today, Jim Miklaszewski told Joe Scarborough that the stockpiles in Israel are routinely tapped for resupply, and that the Pentagon knew all about it at the time — even discussing it openly with the press when the transfer occurred. Miklaszewski scoffed at the notion that the White House would have been caught off-guard about it unless they wanted some plausible deniability.

I AGREE

Muslims in America and Everywhere

This is a reprint of an article I posted in 2008.  Thanks to Ivan for e-mailing me the statistics shown in the book excerpted below, and reminding me of this article.  Nothing has changed.  Muslim jihadists are still butchering innocents; Palestinians are still teaching their children that Jews drink Arab blood and are still trying to kill all Jews; Muslims come to America to escape their culture - then promptly try to impose their culture on the rest of us.

Although most of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children as do we, nevertheless, Muslim history cannot be ignored or denied (as American liberals seem to do), and it is clear that 1. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion – and must be dealt with as such, and 2. We must be vigilant in not allowing the Muslim population to grow, nor allow mosques and schools spreading hate to exist in America.

The following excerpt from Dr. Hammond's book shows the extent of the problem, and that it must be dealt with if we are to keep the freedoms so many Americans died to win for us and to keep for us.

"Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
by Dr. Peter Hammond

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

The Summer of 2006 (A Reprint)

Many media outlets, including the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters, report the Gaza incursion by Israel as if it's new news, and as if the Israelis should just stand and take it.  There is both ancient history and modern history to consider.  Below is a reprint of an earlier blog entry of mine that refers to some recent events,  For some long-term history, please go to Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

Please also understand that if Israel does not shut down the ability of Hamas to engage in rocket attacks, the advancements in rocket science will surely overwhelm the defense systems of the Israelis in the near future, and new missiles supplied by Hezbollah (Iran) will start killing thousands of them.
Remembering the Summer of 2006

"On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah guerillas killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another two, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. All the while Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at civilian targets in Northern Israel. These acts against Israel’s sovereignty sparked Israel's defensive measures and the subsequent escalation of the conflict. In the end, as a direct consequence of Hezbollah’s belligerence, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli civilians lay dead and the infrastructure of Lebanon lay in ruins." From Sea to Shining Sea 10/9/06

"At a time when history is hardly being taught anymore, and journalists lie, it must be hard for our young people to understand who the good guys are in the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis in what was called Palestine. In a land where both Jews and Arabs have dwelt and fought one another for ages, it was Solomon-like for the United Nations to divide the land between them in 1947 – yes, 1947, more than 60 years ago. Neither the Arabs in surrounding countries nor the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians would accept that decision, and the Palestinians moved out, confident that they could soon move back and take over all the land; while Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen attacked the Israelis.

Four times since 1948 the Arab countries have attacked Israel with the objective of exterminating every Jew who lived there. The result of these wars was defeat and humiliation for the Arabs and more-defensible borders for the Israelis.

Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel (for which Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists), and, over the years, many times other countries, mostly the U.S.A., have tried to broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last, significant negotiation, called the Oslo Accords, was brokered between President Clinton, the Palestinian leader, PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli Premier,Yitzhak Rabin. Many Israelis objected to the terms of this agreement and replaced Rabin, while the Palestinians reacted by launching the “Intifada”, a never-ending state of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Oslo Accords came to naught.

Due to the rampant anti-Semitism that exists in much of the world, Israel has often been portrayed as the monster in the conflict. When Hezbollah attacked Israel in the summer of 2006, both the Associated Press and Reuters were caught doctoring photographs and filing false reports (remember Cana) that condemned Israel unfairly." From Sea to Shining Sea 7/19/2008

2009 Update

Nothing ever changes. No tears should be shed for Israeli women and children who live under the daily threat of constant bombardment from rockets launched from Gaza or from death by being blown up by Palestinian terrorists from a bomb set in a busy store or on a bus. Here is today’s attempt by the New York Times to raise anger against Israel and enlist sympathy for the murderers. Give me a break!

In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer

January 1, 2009 By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY New York Times (Excerpt)

"GAZA — A dentist stood at the bed of a doctor, his good friend Ehab Madhoun, 32, who had just died, his shrapnel-pitted body wrapped in a white shroud.

The day before, Dr. Madhoun, a general practitioner, was in an ambulance responding to an Israeli strike at the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Another missile hit the ambulance. The driver, Muhammad Abu Hasira, died instantly. Dr. Madhoun lingered for a day, dying of his wounds on Wednesday in the intensive care unit of Shifa Hospital, where hundreds of people have been brought since Israel began its heaviest assault on Gaza in three decades.

The dentist cried.

“He was just doing his work,” said the dentist, who would not give his name. “He’s a doctor, and I can’t understand why Israel would hit an ambulance. They can tell from the cameras it’s an ambulance.”

It has always been this way, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But five days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed past operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on Earth." New York Times

Obama's Hatred of Israel

The look on both their faces says it all.

 

President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2011.

 By Jay Bergman
Providence Journal August 1, 2014



Obama's Israel Actions Merit Impeachment

NEW BRITAIN, Conn.

President Obama’s demand for an unconditional and immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hamas, which would leave the latter with the wherewithal to murder Israeli civilians in the future, is just the most recent example of what can only be considered a conscious and deliberate policy to weaken and to undermine the security of the only Jewish state in the world.

From denying Israel the “bunker-buster” bombs it needs to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, to infantile snubs of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of the United States has shown an unswerving, consistent and relentless hostility to Israel that is not only harmful to Israel but to America as well.

Theological fanatics like Hamas will not be kindly disposed to the United States, much less deterred from continuing their genocidal war against Israel, by Obama’s ongoing appeasement, which has been justified and explained away by the president’s ridiculous claim, first made in his speech in Cairo in 2009, to understand Islam because he lived as a youth in a Muslim country, Indonesia.

Every public and semi-public admonishment of Israel, whether by President Obama or by his loquacious secretary of state, John Kerry, only encourages those who seek Israel’s destruction to persist in their evil design: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and, by seeking to flood Israel with “refugees” too young to have been alive when Israel was created in 1948, the Palestinian Authority.

One may disagree about the reason for the president’s attitude. The most plausible is not that he is secretly Muslim, but rather that he loathes Israel because he loathes America, that for Obama the former is an integral appendage of the latter, no less racist and discriminatory at home and just as imperialist and expansionist abroad. Ironically, the Iranians show they also believe in this connection by building intercontinental missiles to fire at “The Big Satan” (the United States) once “The Little Satan” (Israel) is destroyed.

In light of the multiple dangers Israel faces, even as it is currently dealing, at great cost in human life, with an enemy that seeks the destruction not only of Israel but, as its founding charter makes clear, of all Jews, it is time for American Jews to recognize that the current occupant of the White House means real and lasting harm to the state of the Jewish people and thus to the Jewish people themselves.

If American Jews who support Obama’s positions on domestic issues such as abortion and immigration consider these issues more important than Israel’s survival, then they should continue to support his presidency. But for American Jews who both as Jews and as Americans consider Israel’s survival the foremost moral imperative of our time, and who believe that without Israel Judaism itself will suffer demographic extinction and that America would be even more tempting a target for Muslim terrorists than it was before 9/11, their obligation is clear and inescapable: to do everything they can to pressure President Obama to cease his relentless hostility to Israel and, if that does not work, to seek his removal from office. Impeachment and conviction do not require the commission of crimes. Dereliction of duty is sufficient.

The foreign policy Obama has pursued, of punishing America’s allies, not just Israel but other pro-Western democracies such as Poland and the Czech Republic, and of appeasing America’s enemies, not just Muslim theocracies but also thuggish dictatorships such as Putin’s Russia, is clear evidence of presidential negligence, of failing to do everything necessary to protect the American people. If this is not an impeachable offense, one is hard pressed to say what is.

Jay Bergman is a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, in New Britain, Conn.

Here We Go Again

A headline in this morning’s Sun Herald infuriated me.

It screamed, “Israel strikes residential area”. For decades Arabs in surrounding countries (and Iran) have been trying to exterminate the Israelis, and only a short time ago the Palestinians were murdering Jews during their various Intifadas. Whenever the Israelis try to defend themselves, liberals and their corrupt press post article after article about the bloodthirsty Israelis.

During the last actual warfare, both Reuters and the Associated Press were caught red-handed fabricating stories and pictures that made Israelis look like monsters. I know that reporters fear for their lives when in Muslim countries, but they should quit their profession or change where they choose to work – rather than feed us this anti-Semitic nonsense.

Everyone with even a cursory knowledge of Gaza knows that they hide behind women and children when they locate their rocket launchers. They place them near homes, hospitals and mosques. What are Israelis to do when hundreds of rockets are raining down on them?

Not too long ago the Israelis twice made trades of “land for peace”. Returning the Sinai to Egypt brought a peace that resulted in the assassination of Anwar Sadat (a peace that is threatened now by the takeover in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood), while giving Gaza to the Palestinians has resulted in no peace, just periodic intervals of terror and bloodshed initiated by Arab terrorists who call themselves, Hamas. When they are not figuring out ways to kill more Jews, they are teaching their children that Jews are actually pigs that drink the blood of Arab children during their religious ceremonies.

Bias by the Numbers

Leo Rennert November 18, 2012 American Thinker

Pick up the Sunday, Nov. 18 edition of the Washington Post and you'll find a lengthy, front-page wrap-up about Israel's antiterrorist counteroffensive in Gaza -- with three perfect examples of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bias. all within eight paragraphs of each other ("GAZA CLASH WIDENS -- Israel expands air assault against Hamas, says Tel Aviv-bound rocket was intercepted" by Karin Brulliard and Abigail Hauslohner).

Here they are by the numbers:

1) Brulliard and Hauslohner devote half a dozen paragraphs to a heart-tugging, up-close and personal account of two Gaza teachers awakened by the family's windows shattering and their walls bursting open. The house next door, which belonged to a Hamas commander, sustained a direct hit. One of the teachers "frantically dug his five children out of the rubble." The other teacher "rushed from room to room, crying and gathering her children's clothing, school bags and dolls." The Post quotes her as saying again and again, "Where are we going to go? The Israelis are responsible. They are the enemy of God. What did we do? Did we carry any missiles? Did we launch any rockets?" All very poignant. But what about similar scenes in Israel, where Hamas rockets by the hundreds have been pounding civilian targets from Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Netivot to the proximity of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Do Brulliard and Hauslohner devote as much space to cameos of Israelis, especially children, suffering from shock and post-traumatic stress? Does their suffering also rate half a dozen paragraphs of sympathetic coverage? If not six paragraphs, how about three... or maybe just one paragraph? Or a single despairing quote? But in the entire Post article, there isn't a single sentence depicting Israelis frantically rushing to shelters as sirens blare at any time of day -- or the traumas left in their wake. Nothing, nada. As Shakespeare might have protested: "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

2. Brulliard and Hauslohner, writing about Israeli air strikes that demolished a Hamas police building and the headquarters of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, conclude that "Israel appeared to be channeling new efforts toward Hamas civilian institutions." Hamas headquarters a "civilian institution"? It is nothing of the sort. The terrorist group has a unitary command-and-control apparatus and infrastructure. This is where all the terrorist plots are hatched under single command. But the Post, long known for its predilection to sanitize Hamas, presents them as "civilian" facilities that presumably should remain untouched. How touching -- for beleaguered Hamas, with Brulliard and Hauslohner to the rescue of this terrorist outfit.

3) And what about fatalities on either side? Here's the article's take: "The death toll in Gaza rose to 45 by Saturday evening, Health Ministry officials said. Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza." Forty-five dead "Palestinians" versus three dead "Israelis." The numerical comparison, however, is highly misleading. It's apples and oranges. On the Israel side, the three fatalities were civilians -- a reflection of Hamas aiming its massive rocket barrages at civilian populations. On the Gaza side, however, Israeli air strikes are carefully and deliberately aimed at terrorists, their arms caches, ammunition, and rocket launchers. Yes, there are collateral fatalities, but only because Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza hide amid civilians and use them as ''human shields.'' Estimates of combatant-versus-noncombatant fatalities in Gaza are beginning to trickle in. Early figures show most of them were combatants engaged in terrorist operations. To bundle civilian and terrorist fatalities into a single statistic leaves readers with a false impression that perhaps most or all of those killed Gazans were civilians -- the very opposite of what's really happening there. Bottom line: Washington Post readers beware. This isn't kosher journalism.

How's the Arab Spring Working Out, President Obama?

Lot’s of people, mostly liberals, credited President Obama’s Cairo speech on June 4, 2009 (the highlight of his apology tour) as the spark that set off the Arab Spring.

However, the Arab Spring that the Obama Administration supported so strongly is blowing up in all our faces, as many, including John Bolton, strongly warned would happen. We now have an Egyptian leader who wants to break the Camp David peace with Israel, strengthen ties with Iran, support violent jihad, and subject all Egyptian citizens to the barbaric Sharia law.

Meanwhile, after several years of peace, rocket attacks from Egypt into Israel have resumed, and natural gas shipments to Israel are being sabotaged. With Mubarak’s protection lost, Coptic Christians are being murdered, and other non-Muslims throughout Egypt are in grave danger.

How’s Your Support for the Arab Spring working out, President Obama?

By the way, other than Fox News, you will not hear of the rants against Israel and the call to Jihad by Egypt’s new president on any mainstream news outlet. Why is that?

Morsi To Re-Think Israel, Build Ties With Iran

From the Agence France-Presse

Egypt’s Morsi ‘to rethink Israel pact, build Iran ties’

June 24, 2012

Egypt’s Islamist president-elect, Mohamed Morsi, wants to "reconsider" the peace deal with Israel and build ties with Iran to "create a strategic balance" in the Middle East, according to an interview published by Iran’s Fars news agency on Monday.

The stated goals are certain to alarm Israel and its ally the United States as they adapt to the new direction Egypt will chart with Morsi at the helm.

These goals might alarm the people of the US, but maybe not its current administration.

They could also boost Iran’s influence in the Middle East at a time of heightened tensions between Tehran and the West.

"We will reconsider the Camp David Accord" that, in 1979, forged a peace between Egypt and Israel that has held for more than three decades, Morsi was quoted as telling a Fars reporter in Cairo on Sunday, just before his election triumph was announced.

He said the issue of Palestinian refugees returning to homes their families abandoned in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the 1967 Six-Day War "is very important"…

Only professional journalists could be should be surprised at this.

Morsi also said he was ready to improve ties with Iran. The Islamic republic broke off diplomatic relations with Egypt in 1980, a year after Cairo signed the peace deal with the Jewish state.

"Part of my agenda is the development of ties between Iran and Egypt that will create a strategic balance in the region," Morsi was quoted as saying…

Iran’s foreign ministry on Sunday welcomed Morsi’s triumph. Its message made no mention, however, of Iran and Egypt resuming diplomatic ties.

That they are running articles about it in their news outlets should be enough.

Iran’s clerical leadership contends that the Arab Spring that toppled veteran Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and other longtime US allies in the Arab world last year was inspired by its own 1979 Islamic revolution…

But you can be sure that Mr. Morsi’s statements are only the beginning.

He has much bigger plans for the people of Egypt, which were reported in an article from Russia Today, back in May 13, 2012:

Egypt presidential candidate seeks Constitution based on Sharia Law

May 13, 2012

Egypt’s Constitution should be based on the Koran and Sharia law, presidential candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist movement Mohamed Morsi said.

“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” Morsi said in his election speech before Cairo University students on Saturday night.

Today Egypt is close as never before to the triumph of Islam at all the state levels, he said.

“Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals,” he said…

So nobody can pretend that they weren’t told by the man himself what he wanted to do.

Ironically, lest we forget, it was to the students of Cairo University that Obama gave his world famous ‘Cairo Speech,’ back on June 4, 2009, which some claim inspired the Arab Spring.

Though, as the AFP article above notes, the Iranians say that their ‘revolution’ has been the real inspiration for ‘Arab Spring.’ And when you look at the results in Tunisia, and Libya and now Egypt it is hard not to agree with the Iranians.

Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

The recent, clumsy attempt by President Obama to meddle in the life or death border issues of Israel has sparked wide interest in the history of this area and its peoples, which has motivated me to republish an article I originally published two years ago.

The original Mandate for Palestine, agreed to unanimously by the League of Nations in 1920, designated 124,466 sq. km. for the Jewish National Homeland, to be known as Israel. Here’s the map of that area:

Two years later, that 120,466 sq. km. had been reduced to 28,166 sq. km., as requested by the British trustees and approved by the League of Nation. The remaining 77% of the land originally proposed for the Jewish homeland was to become the Arab state of Jordan.

The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called “the West Bank and Gaza.”

The Jewish homeland was to consist of all the land west of the Jordan River, stretching to the Mediterranean Sea - and including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The Arabs would not have it. The League of Nations dissolved into the United Nations and the problem was handed over to the U.N., including the trusteeship of the British mandate to make a Jewish state a reality. The Mandate stood.

U.N. Resolution 181, known also as the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution, was passed by the U.N. General Assembly, and implemented but never accepted by the Arabs. The Iraq spokesman took to the podium and put on record “Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision.” From Syria: “My country will never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible for it.” From Yemen: “…the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision,…”

The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote.

Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation ‘a still birth.’

The UN itself recognized that 181 had not been accepted by the Arab side, rendering it a dead issue:
…
The U.N. partition began. More land was taken from the Jewish homeland.

The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance. This was largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations. This demographic factor insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.

The map now looked like this:

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state’s frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.

Israel’s land which was originally mandated at 126,000+ sq. km., was now to be a mere 14,245 sq. kms. In addition to limiting Jewish lands, the immigration of Jews was also limited so that a majority of Jews in the land would never be accomplished.

Arab immigration had no immigration restrictions.

Israel accepted the partition, but in reality, it did not change or diminish the legality of the lands mandated for Israel - which still included the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - BECAUSE, the Arabs would agree to nothing which facilitated Jews in Palestine.

Creating the Arab state of Jordan in no way affected or “changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.”

Nothing from the time of the Mandate until today, changes the fact that under international law, the West Bank and Gaza is open to Jewish settlement.

Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories.

The UN Charter’s Article 80 implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations. The International Court of Justice has reaffirmed the validity of Article of 80.

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.

The new Jewish state was to have the right to self-determination of political, civil and religious rights. “Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs).”

The Arabs accepted nothing. They wanted no Jews in Palestine, under any circumstance - there would be, to this day, no acceptable plan to which Arabs would agree to living next door to Jews.

On May 14th, 1948, a temporary legislature of the soon-to-be Israel, accepted the U.N. partition and declared statehood.

Eleven minutes after, the United States recognized the State of Israel. On May 15th, 1948 Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria invaded the sovereign nation of Israel, crossing international frontiers, and the Arab-Israeli War (Israeli War of Independence) began.

By July 24, 1949, Syria had signed an armistice agreement and Israel had increased it’s land area by almost 50% over the U.N. partition plan. The resulting armistice determined Israel’s borders for nineteen years. Egypt gained Gaza in the armistice.

By Fall 1949, Jordan had control of Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The odd and secretive 1956 War began. The short but incomplete story is that Israel took Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and then under threat by the U.S., gave it back.

Then came the 1967 Six Day War. In the Spring, Syria conducted terrorist raids against Israel, water was diverted by Syria from Israel and from irrigation projects for south and central Israel, although approved by Arab engineers as non-detrimental to Arab lands, were not approved by the Arab governments. In May, Egypt blocked the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. “Lebanon, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all activated their militaries. Iraqi troops reportedly approached the Syrian and Jordanian borders while Jordan moved tanks towards the West Bank.”

Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia formed a “defense pact.” Egyptian President Nasser said “Our basic objective will be the destruction if Israel. The Arab people want to fight….” The tiny nation of Israel was surrounded by “some 500,000 troops, more than 5,000 tanks, and almost 1,000 fighter planes.” France, Israel’s major arms supplier, issued a “complete ban on weapons sales and transfers to Israel.”

Under the leadership of Moyshe Dayan, Israel decided to go to war on June 5, 1967.

After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria. Following an air attack by the Syrians on the first day of the war, Israel dealt a shattering blow to the Syrian air force. …on fifth day of the war, the Israelis mustered enough forces to remove the Syrian threat from the Golan Heights. This difficult operation was completed the following day, bringing the active phase of the war to a close.

Israel now looked like this:

The areas shown in bright green (Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem) were occupied by Israel during the 6-day war. Israel has since returned all of Sinai to Egypt in return for peace. Most of Gaza is currently under the jurisdiction of the autonomous Palestinian Authority (2002). Parts of the West Bank (see Map of Israel and Palestinian territories following Oslo II) had been ceded to the Palestinian authority, but these areas are currently re-occupied by Israel.

Following the 6 day war, Israel began building settlements in these areas.

The aftermath of the war was complicated, but one fact was all too simple: Arabs rejected all diplomatic attempts.

Some of [the] displaced people were able to return to Israeli-controlled West Bank and, along with their neighbors, witnessed unprecedented economic growth over the course of the next two decades. Israeli investment into the infrastructure of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, coupled with policies that allowed Arabs to move freely increased the standard of living of Palestinians, who were now able to work both in Israel and in the oil rich countries in the Middle East.

After years of relative prosperity followed, but Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) insisted that they would replace Israel, not co-exist with her.

With continued PLO agitation of the people, violence became common. Israel made peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai. The 1993 failed Oslo Peace Accord had Israel giving up the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - which was accomplished with Israel’s withdrawal, including the ejection of Jewish residents in the area in 2005.

Once out of Gaza, nothing changed. The terrorists of Gaza Strip became slumlords and violence against Israel has continued.

Palestinian militants—with the support of their Hamas-led government—have used the evacuated territory to launch rockets into Israel’s pre-1967 borders, shelling residents of Sderot and other neighboring communities and causing death, injuries and damage within Israel. Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the territory has also become the site of deadly internecine violence among Palestinian factions, kidnapping of journalists, vandalism, looting and general mayhem. Far from bringing peace to the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal has resulted in less secure borders for Israel.

In the 1973 War (Yom Kippur War), again the Arab world came against Israel, as Egypt sought to regain territories lost to Israel in 1967. After two days of trying to recover from the surprise attack, Israel’s IDF blocked Syrian, Egyptian and Iraqi assaults and once again took the Golan Heights. By the time a U.N. ceasefire was implemented, “Israel had completely surrounded the Egyptian Third Army.”

How could they succeed when Palestinian leadership remained and remains committed to the destruction of Israel? For those deluded into thinking that Palestinians will accept “peace” with Israel, and co-exist next door to her - if only Israel will remove all settlements from wherever they may be…that just doesn’t wash. The issue is not the Jews in the settlements. The issue is the Jews in Palestine.

No discussion of the Israeli-Arab conflict is complete without taking a look at the Palestinian people. Who are they? Who did they evolve from?

The area known as Palestine was and is a geographic area, not an ethnic people. In other words, Arabs living in the area are not ethnically Palestinian. To say it another way: Palestinians are not a native people. “The word Palestine is not even Arabic.”

Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome.

In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. During that rule, local Arabs were actually considered part of, and subject to, the authority of Greater Syria ( Suriyya al-Kubra).

Archeologists explain that the Philistines were a Mediterranean people who settled along the coast of Canaan in 1100 BCE. They have no connection to the Arab nation, a desert people who emerged from the Arabian Peninsula.

Tagging the Arabs in Palestine as Palestinian was a mission fabricated by Arabs to attempt to assert the Arab right to the Jewish holy lands at the time when Jewish statehood was becoming a reality - but history shows that Arabs were never identified as Palestinians:

This is substantiated in countless official British Mandate-vintage documents that speak of the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine – not Jews and Palestinians.
Other examples:

The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called The Palestine Post until 1948. Bank Leumi L’Israel, incorporated in 1902, was called the “Anglo-Palestine Company” until 1948.

The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was initially called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was originally called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra,” composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.

The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fund-raising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.
Fifty-one countries acknowledged that Israel had an historic connection to the land eventually known as Palestine:

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

Furthermore:

The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow. Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great “Arab nation,” historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria…

The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

The population of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq did not “evolve,” but were created by “colonial powers.” No “Palestinian DNA exists!

Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatory (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.

The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

The conclusion: don’t waste your energy and your angst blaming Israel for stealing the homeland of the Palestinians. Don’t obsess over the dead and dying in Palestine.

The time has come to recognize that Palestinian leaders have gravely failed their own. The millions of dollars of aid to feed and clothe the poor and oppressed seldom get to the people. Philanthropy buys weapons and means to attack Israel.

Westerners supporting Palestine believe that if Israel will only turn over their settlements to Palestine, Israel and Palestine will live side-by-side in peace. This is inane and vacuous thinking. It is the willing suspension of disbelief. It is pure anti-semitism. Serious thought cannot arrive at such a conclusion.

The Fatah Constitution Articles 12 and 19: Complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

The PLO Charter Article 15 calls the liberation of Palestine a national (qawmi) duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the “liquidation of the Zionist presence” in Palestine.

The Hamas Charter: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees….Hamas Charter Article 15 (a portion): “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.”

Obama's Perfidy On Israel

My Obama-supporting morning paper had on its front page an Associated Press (AP) story that President Obama had, in announcing that the USA wanted Israel to return to it’s 1967 borders, that he was really only restating what had been US policy all along. People like me, who pay attention to these things, have long known of the anti-Israel bias and left-wing bias of the AP, but I still gasped at this lie. More pro-Obama spin.

With what is happening now in the Middle East, a return to those borders means death to Israel. Egypt is making many noises about renouncing it’s treaty with Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling the shots all along the African rim, and Iran is close to making good on its threats to vaporize all Jews.

These are the borders that Obama was proposing:

Notice that Gaza was under Egypt's control, the West Bank was under Jordan's control, and the Golan Heights were controlled by Syria. At some points Israel is only 9 miles wide.

Below are Israel's borders after they won the 1968 war resulting from combined attacks by Egypt,Iraq, Syria and Jordan on Israel. Israel hung on to Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, territories won by blood, and providing borders that have some chance of being defended. The Sinai desert was ceded back to Egypt by Israel when the two countries later signed a peace treaty.

It is clear that Obama regards Israel as a colonial power like Great Britain and despises them both. To understand Obama's obsession, read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage". We should not allow his obsession to destroy our only ally and the only real democracy in the area.

What Should Netanyahu Say?

In my 76 years I have never before been moved to call the White House to complain about a president's actions; yesterday, after Obama's outrageous speech that marks the beginning of the end for Israel, I called.

I've never called before. Not when Johnson bombed Hanoi. Not when Nixon lied about Watergate. Not when Carter pulled the rug from the Shah and lost Iran. Not when Bush 41 lied about "no new taxes". But today I did. The number is 202-456-1111.

What Should Netanyahu Say?

By Jerold S. AuerbachMay 20, 2011 American Thinker

Next Tuesday, four days after he meets with President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu will address Congress. With Israel now confronting a triple-security threat that leaves the country more vulnerable than at any time since the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, it is imperative for the Israeli leader to stand firm.

Netanyahu's planned "peace initiative" has been undermined by recent events. With its peace treaty with Egypt fraying since Mubarak's forced departure, Gaza will surely become a Hamas arsenal. Reconciliation between Hamas, sworn to Israel's destruction, and the Palestinian Authority, too weak to resist, will trap Israel between Palestinian pincers in Gaza and the West Bank. Looming in September is United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood, another step in that organization's persistent delegitimization of Israel.

Pressure continues to mount, from the international community and from the Obama administration, for Israel to relinquish the West Bank for a Palestinian state -- and, presumably, "peace." That is a delusion.

It is time for Netanyahu, in his address to Congress, to decisively reject the seductive but menacing mantra of "land for peace." His recent declaration that the Palestinian Authority can have peace with Israel or with Hamas, but not both, was reassuring. His conditions for peace, recently outlined to the Knesset, sounded firm: Palestinian recognition of Israel; its refugee problem to be solved outside Israel's borders; settlement blocs to remain part of Israel, with Jerusalem as its united capital. But they are insufficient.

The West Bank mountain ridge forms the major land barrier against an attack from the east that could decimate the coastal plain (including Tel Aviv), where 70 percent of Israelis live. The widely despised Jewish settlements located there are not the primary obstacle to peace; enduring Arab hostility to a Jewish state is. Between 1948 and 1967, there were no settlements -- and still no peace.

The prime minister might use his opportunity to remind the world that the West Bank, biblical Judea and Samaria, is the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Two thousand years of ancient Jewish history unfolded there. If there is Jewish land anywhere in the world, it is there.

Until after the Six-Day War, however, this land was Judenrein. Only then, following yet another failed Arab attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, could Jews return to live in their historical homeland. More than 300,000 Israelis have done so. Surrounding settlements with a Palestinian state will destroy them and undermine Israeli security. The alternative -- Israeli expulsion of tens of thousands of Jews who live outside the settlement blocs -- is no better.

Finally, given relentless international efforts to delegitimize Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu might remind critics that Jewish settlement, protected by international guarantees ever since 1922, is fully consistent with international law.

The League of Nations Mandate then cited "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." After Great Britain lopped off three-quarters of Palestine for Trans-Jordan (the first Palestinian state), Jews were assured the right of "close settlement" in the remaining land west of the Jordan River. That right has never been rescinded.

Article 80 of the United Nations Charter explicitly protected the rights of "any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." Drafted in 1945 by Jewish legal representatives (including Ben-Zion Netanyahu, the Prime Minister's father), it preserved the rights of the Jewish people to settle in all the land west of the Jordan River.

Settlement critics often cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949 in the shadow of the Holocaust, as a restriction on settlement. They are mistaken. Drafted to prevent a repetition of the forced Nazi and Soviet deportations of civilian populations, it declared that an "Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

This provision has no applicability to Jewish settlements. Neither during nor since the Six-Day War did Israel "deport" Palestinians from the West Bank or "transfer" Israelis there. Settlers acted on their own volition to restore a Jewish presence in the Jewish homeland -- precisely as Zionist kibbutzniks had earlier done in the Galilee and Negev.

After the Six-Day War, Security Council Resolution 242 permitted Israel to administer the West Bank until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. (In case anyone has noticed, that has not yet happened.) Even then, Israel would be required only to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" -- not from "the territories" or "all the territories."

The absence of "the," the missing definite article, was not accidental. The result of prolonged negotiation, it meant that Israel would not be required to withdraw from all the territory that it had acquired during the Six-Day War; indeed, precisely such proposals were defeated in both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Prime Minister Netayahu's speech should be framed with reminders of these international guarantees, the historic Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel, and the menacing security situation that Israel will confront should its ancient homeland be abandoned. The consequences for Israel of surrendering its legitimate security and its historic and internationally guaranteed land claims would be dire, if not fatal.

But if his past is prologue, then Netanyahu is likely to revert, once again, to what Harvard Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has aptly called "the Diaspora strategy of accommodation." This is precisely what Jewish statehood was intended to terminate.

Netanyahu's willingness to sacrifice Jewish land, first demonstrated when he capitulated to Clinton administration demands under the Oslo II Accords, is a disturbing harbinger. Last year he acceded to President Obama's insistence on a ten-month freeze on settlement construction -- in return for nothing. Even after the freeze expired, with no discernible Palestinian willingness to resume peace negotiations, Netanyahu tacitly acquiesced to its continuation.

Appeasement paved the way for one horrific Jewish tragedy. It is imperative for Israel's Prime Minister to state, clearly and unequivocally, that the Jewish state will not become another Czechoslovakia, sacrificed by "friends" to please its enemies. Clinging to the fantasy of land for peace can only deepen Israel's alarming vulnerability.

Stab Israel in the Back and Build a Mosque at 9/11

There is no outrage by the Obama Administration that angers and saddens me more than their simultaneous attempts to throw Israel under the bus while trying to cozy up to Muslims who have been trying their best to kill Americans for these last thirty years. Every thinking person knows that Israel needs nuclear weapons to survive – and needs to keep its mouth shut about their existence until the terrible day comes when they may have to use them.

Every thinking person also knows that virtually all acts of terror in the world today are committed by Muslims, and that when even peaceful Muslims reach a significant minority status in countries they infiltrate, they try to impose their Sharia – a system of religious laws that are completely incompatible with American traditions of religious and political freedoms. What is wrong with this man, Obama?

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move
May 30 03:22 Breitbart.com (Excerpt)

“Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.“ Breitbart.com

The Obama Administration, including Obam himself, is composed of Dhimmicrats.

Dhimmicrats on the March?

By Ken Blackwell May 25, 2010 American Thinker (Excerpt)

"What's a dhimmicrat, you say? It's not the same thing as a Democrat. A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations....

What is dhimmitude, anyway? It's the status -- or lack of status-- that is accorded to non-believers in Muslim-dominant countries. Dhimmis get to pay special taxes for not being Muslim. They get to be excluded from many educational and professional opportunities. They get to have their churches burned and their communities attacked. If you want to know more about what life is like under dhimmitude, just ask the Copts of Egypt. But ask these hardy Christians here. Don't ask them there.

Eric Holder is a leading dhimmicrat in government today. Our Attorney General has yet to rule out a civilian trial in Manhattan for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad boasted of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. A more loathsome human being would be hard to imagine. But Eric Holder is giving Khalid Sheikh Muhammad all the rights accorded to American citizens accused of mass murder. Why? Why, too, should Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, be given a Miranda warning and allowed to escape trial before a military tribunal? Our A.G. has no coherent answer to these questions.

The answer is that dhimmicrats fear to offend. Fear drives them to make concession after concession. They are forever apologizing. The Crusades? Don't even mention the word. That can set them off. Jihadists today complain about Crusaders' cruelty in the 12th century. (That's odd. I don't remember riots when Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 Muslims in his forty-year reign of terror.) In Britain, timorous town councilors even banned Winnie the Pooh because the character of Piglet might offend some residents. These councilors are dhimmicrats all. The dhimmicrats are on the march." American Thinker

The Summer of 2006 (A Reprint)

Many media outlets, including the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters, report the Gaza incursion by Israel as if it's new news, and as if the Israelis should just stand and take it.  There is both ancient history and modern history to consider.  Below is a reprint of an earlier blog entry of mine that refers to some recent events,  For some long-term history, please go to Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

Please also understand that if Israel does not shut down the ability of Hamas to engage in rocket attacks, the advancements in rocket science will surely overwhelm the defense systems of the Israelis in the near future, and new missiles supplied by Hezbollah (Iran) will start killing thousands of them.

Remembering the Summer of 2006

"On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah guerillas killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another two, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. All the while Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at civilian targets in Northern Israel. These acts against Israel’s sovereignty sparked Israel's defensive measures and the subsequent escalation of the conflict. In the end, as a direct consequence of Hezbollah’s belligerence, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli civilians lay dead and the infrastructure of Lebanon lay in ruins." From Sea to Shining Sea 10/9/06

"At a time when history is hardly being taught anymore, and journalists lie, it must be hard for our young people to understand who the good guys are in the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis in what was called Palestine. In a land where both Jews and Arabs have dwelt and fought one another for ages, it was Solomon-like for the United Nations to divide the land between them in 1947 – yes, 1947, more than 60 years ago. Neither the Arabs in surrounding countries nor the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians would accept that decision, and the Palestinians moved out, confident that they could soon move back and take over all the land; while Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen attacked the Israelis.

Four times since 1948 the Arab countries have attacked Israel with the objective of exterminating every Jew who lived there. The result of these wars was defeat and humiliation for the Arabs and more-defensible borders for the Israelis.

Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel (for which Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists), and, over the years, many times other countries, mostly the U.S.A., have tried to broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last, significant negotiation, called the Oslo Accords, was brokered between President Clinton, the Palestinian leader, PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli Premier,Yitzhak Rabin. Many Israelis objected to the terms of this agreement and replaced Rabin, while the Palestinians reacted by launching the “Intifada”, a never-ending state of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Oslo Accords came to naught.

Due to the rampant anti-Semitism that exists in much of the world, Israel has often been portrayed as the monster in the conflict. When Hezbollah attacked Israel in the summer of 2006, both the Associated Press and Reuters were caught doctoring photographs and filing false reports (remember Cana) that condemned Israel unfairly." From Sea to Shining Sea 7/19/2008

2009 Update

Nothing ever changes. No tears should be shed for Israeli women and children who live under the daily threat of constant bombardment from rockets launched from Gaza or from death by being blown up by Palestinian terrorists from a bomb set in a busy store or on a bus. Here is today’s attempt by the New York Times to raise anger against Israel and enlist sympathy for the murderers. Give me a break!

In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer

January 1, 2009 By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY New York Times (Excerpt)

"GAZA — A dentist stood at the bed of a doctor, his good friend Ehab Madhoun, 32, who had just died, his shrapnel-pitted body wrapped in a white shroud.

The day before, Dr. Madhoun, a general practitioner, was in an ambulance responding to an Israeli strike at the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Another missile hit the ambulance. The driver, Muhammad Abu Hasira, died instantly. Dr. Madhoun lingered for a day, dying of his wounds on Wednesday in the intensive care unit of Shifa Hospital, where hundreds of people have been brought since Israel began its heaviest assault on Gaza in three decades.

The dentist cried.

“He was just doing his work,” said the dentist, who would not give his name. “He’s a doctor, and I can’t understand why Israel would hit an ambulance. They can tell from the cameras it’s an ambulance.”

It has always been this way, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But five days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed past operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on Earth." New York Times

Again Liberals of the World Condemn Israel

In the summer of 2006, after Iran’s surrogate, Hezbollah, had repeatedly rained missiles into Israel from Lebanon – and then killed and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, the world condemned Israel for retaliating to stop the missile attacks and recover her soldiers. Now again, after continuous provocation by the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who sneak into Israel to plant bombs and kill people and who also hurl missiles daily into Israel, Israel is again being condemned by the anti-Semites of the world for defending herself.

If a country on our border, like Mexico, were to launch missiles into the United States, we would respond with overwhelming force. I have never understood how the Israelis could accept these constant, deadly attacks without launching a response designed to drive every Palestinian in Gaza into the desert or into the sea. The restraint shown by Israel is incredible, but seems to gain them little or nothing from those who instinctively hate them. Why do they continue to show such restraint?

Possibly one reason for Israel’s restraint may be the responses by Egypt and Jordan this time. They have had enough of the death and destruction which define the Palestinians:

Egypt: Hizbullah declared war on us

Dec. 28, 2008 THE JERUSALEM POST (Excerpts)

“In a press conference held on Monday afternoon in Ankara with his Turkish counterpart, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit responded to criticism by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Sunday, saying that "They have practically declared war on Egypt via several satellite stations. The Egyptian people reject and opposes this declaration."

"They want for there to be chaos in Egypt as there is in their country," Gheit said of Hizbullah….

In his televised speech on Sunday, Nasrallah attacked Arab nations - particularly Egypt and Jordan - and accused them of cooperation with Israel in its offensive in the Gaza Strip.

"There are some who speak of Arab silence, but this is wrong. There is full Arab cooperation, especially by those who have signed so-called peace agreements with Israel," he said.

The Hizbullah leader called on Arabs everywhere to go out into the streets and demonstrate, in order to force their governments to stop the Israeli offensive.
Nasrallah reprimanded Egypt for casting the responsibility of the condition in Gaza on Hamas.

He attacked the Egyptian foreign minister who in a Saturday press conference said that Hamas, which had been repeatedly warned by Egypt, must bear responsibility for the current situation in Gaza.” Jerusalem Post

Contrast the measured and realistic response of Egypt and Jordan with this excerpt today from the liberal “American Prospect”:

“No deaths and few injuries. "Deeply disturbing." Hamas lacks the technology to aim its rockets. They're taking potshots. In response, the Israeli government launched air strikes that have now killed more than 280 Palestinians, injured hundreds beyond that, and further radicalized thousands in the Occupied Territories and millions in the region. The response will not come today, of course. It will come in months, or even in years, when an angry orphan detonates a belt filled with shrapnel, killing himself and 25 Israelis. At which point the Israelis will launch air strikes killing another 70 Palestinians, radicalizing thousands more, leading to more bombings, and so the cycle continues….

There is nothing proportionate in this response. No way to fit it into a larger strategy that leads towards eventual peace. No way to fool ourselves into believing that it will reduce bloodshed and stop terrorist attacks. It is simple vengeance. There's a saying in the Jewish community: "Israel, right or wrong." But sometimes Israel is simply wrong.” American Prospect

Of all the mush-headed, liberal positions that reasonable people have to contend with, none is more odious than their support of Palestinian terrorists. It has been 61 years since the UN recognized Israel’s right to exist. When will these murderers get it, and when will liberals get it?

Hopefully Ralph Nader Will Draw Lots of Flies

I was much encouraged this morning that Ralph Nader has decided to run again for the presidency in 2008. Hopefully he will do again to the Democrats what Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992 and 1996. He may be divorced from reality, but he is an effective speaker and will motivate many in the hard left to vote for him. I say divorced from reality because, among other things, he is a proponent of the terrorists in Gaza, ignoring completely the many times the Israelis have been attacked by the surrounding Arabs, because he does not seem to realize that oil is our lifeblood and is running out, and because he does not even seem to recognize that life changed forever on 9/11.

Palestinians Solving Palestinian Problem?

Golda Meir, Israel's former prime minister, now deceased, is said to have answered a question about when Israelis and Palestinians would make peace with the statement that, "when Palestinians come to love their children more than they hate us". Since Palestinians are now killing each other with the same gusto that they have when attempting to kill Israelis, it appears that the situation visualized by Mrs. Meir will be a long time coming. It is tempting to just let these madmen kill themselves all off.

June 12, 2007
Gaza Collapsing, Cross-posted from Captains Quarters

"The latest cease-fire between Palestinian factions has collapsed almost before it got announced as Gaza slides into an all-out civil war. Refugees have begun to flee to Egypt, and Hamas-controlled mosques now serve as broadcast stations for war announcements:

Palestinian infighting, almost daily Israeli air strikes, and a steadily worsening economic situation triggered by an international aid boycott has made life unbearable for many Palestinians. Those who can are leaving.

European Union monitors at the Rafah border crossing from the Gaza Strip to Egypt say that more than 14,000 Palestinians have fled Gaza since Israel withdrew soldiers and settlers in 2005 and the rise to power of the Islamist Hamas five months later. In the past year alone, the average number of people leaving Gaza per day has doubled from 15 to 30.

The rising number of Palestinians seeking to emigrate has prompted Jerusalem's Mufti, Mohammad Ahmed Hussein, to issue a fatwa prohibiting Palestinians from leaving Palestinian territories.

"Immigration from this blessed land is not permissible according to Islamic law," said the religious edict. "People who live in this land should not leave it for the invaders and occupiers."

That's a sure sign of desperation. Imams now forbid movement of Palestinians even to other "blessed" lands, such as Muslim Egypt. Why? They know that if the Palestinians leave Gaza in droves, it will leave terrorist groups like Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad much more exposed to Israeli strikes.

The imams want their congregations to continue their roles as human shields so that terrorists can conduct holy wars. Isn't that special? No wonder they call Islam the Religion of Peace.

It won't matter. Palestinians in Gaza have seen their one opportunity to create a protostate, free from occupation, utterly collapse. They won't stick around to starve or to get killed in the crossfire. Those with means will leave, to Egypt first and perhaps later to Jordan.

And if the imams haven't covered themselves in enough blood already, now they're announcing attacks from the minarets:

Militants from the armed wing of Hamas have threatened attacks on security positions in Gaza belonging to Palestinian rivals Fatah, reports say.

Hamas-run mosques in Gaza City gave Fatah fighters two hours to leave their positions.

The civil war is already on. Both sides have attacked each other's leadership. Every round of diplomacy creates another cease-fire, which lasts as long as it takes to restock the ammunition. Ordinary Palestinians, who created this situation by supporting Hamas in their last elections, have no way to put an end to the fighting themselves, and the Israelis have learned not to do anything other than target terrorists who target Israel.

Let Gaza collapse. We can't stop it anyway, and our efforts to intercede will by definition leave terrorists stronger in the region. Only when Palestinians tire of bloodshed will it end. Captains Quarters

The Dishonesty of the Left, Part II

The Muslim religion urges violent conversions, which some of its followers dutifully try to carry out, and when even, so-called, peaceful Muslims gain political power, they try to impose Sharia on everyone.

Whenever someone points out the record of terror that Muslims are carrying out on a daily basis around the world, killing many thousands, one of the most stupid comments that is often made by liberals is that, “the Christian religion is just as bad”. If I ever had any respect for the viewpoint of a particular liberal, this kind of moral relevancy, equating the violence done by Christian fanatics several hundred years ago to the butchery of today’s Muslim fanatics, loses that respect immediately. If they do not try to equate historic periods like the Spanish Inquisition (during which about 3000 people were killed – about the same as on one day, 9/11) to today’s barbarism, they either go on to say, “we deserve it for colonialism”, or they really go off the deep end and try to equate President Bush’s attempts to protect America from this terrorism with the acts of the Muslim terrorists (President Bush is, of course, an avowed Christian).

When you throw in the anti-Semitism of some on the left, you get anti-Israel diatribes and expressions of support for the suicide bombers and missile launchers who are raining death daily down on innocent Israeli civilians. They (these liberals) don’t ever seem to get it. Israel has been a sovereign nation for 60 years; it has withstood four wars by Arab nations and countless acts of terrorism by Palestinians (who are detested by the other Arabs and kept in miserable camps for their own ends); Israel is never going to commit national suicide by giving up more of the land they gained while beating off the attempts to drive them into the sea; and they surely are not going to welcome these murderous Palestinian thugs into Israel proper.

So there you have it. The left supports a group of people who think nothing of mutilating and stoning women to death, who throw homosexuals off cliffs, who cut off heads, who punish petty thievery by cutting off hands and who think nothing of setting off bombs deliberately to kill children. Since many on the left are atheists, they justify this immoral stance by saying, “the Christians are the greater danger”. They justify going against all of the human rights’ tenets that liberalism is supposed to represent, and why? Because they hate Bush so much; because he won an election they expected to win; because he espouses Christian values and turns the other cheek when confronted with vitriol and death threats; because he took positive steps to defend America and used our military to defend and advance our interests instead of using the military to advance questionable social goals.

Perhaps during my lifetime, the term, political correctness, will change its meaning from “the only view on this that we liberals will tolerate” to “I used to be a liberal”.