Saturday, August 31, 2013

Palestinians and Double Standards

Mike L.

The piece below was written by David Harris, the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
The tweet arrived last week from a respected journalist. It read: "18 Palestinians killed in #Syria chemical attack."

I subsequently checked other mainstream news sources to see if there were comments on the story. One of the few was Ma'an, the Palestinian news agency, which put the number killed at 31.

How revealing, I thought. Had the tweet read "18 Palestinians killed in #Israeli chemical attack," it would likely have been all over the news, and countless non-governmental groups would have rushed to the ramparts. But if Israel isn't involved, it seems, the killing of Palestinian civilians just doesn't arouse interest, much less anger.

No, this is nothing new, but it is still noteworthy.

There have also been other Palestinian victims in the Syrian civil war, singled out for who they are and what side they're on, and they've been made to pay a heavy price. The reaction from the pro-Palestinian camp? Silence.

Meanwhile, the new Egyptian government, opposed to Hamas rule, has made life difficult for Gaza residents by destroying tunnels between Egypt and Gaza and closing the border at Rafah for days at a time. But here, too, there's been no international outcry or protests. To the contrary, even as Israel continues to permit the daily flow of goods into Gaza, the pro-Palestinian lobby curses Israel, while remaining largely mum about Egypt.

Again, nothing new, perhaps, but still noteworthy.

Even Jordan, the one Arab country (out of 22) with the best record of offering citizenship and creating opportunities for Palestinians within its borders, has maintained a policy of rejecting Palestinian refugees from Syria.

Instead, most of the Palestinians fleeing Syria have had to seek shelter in Lebanon, where the existing Palestinian population cannot legally own property and are banned from literally dozens of professions. Others offer crocodile tears, but, otherwise, barely lift a finger.

Look at who supports UNRWA, the UN agency created more than 60 years ago for the sole purpose of catering to Palestinian refugees and all their descendants, without any mandate to resettle them.

No, it's not the cash-rich Arab countries, but Western nations that bear the brunt of this relief effort, even as we hear unconvincing expressions of solidarity from the Arab world about their Palestinian "brothers and sisters."

And go back to 1991, shortly after Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation. Some 250,000 Palestinians were unceremoniously expelled from the country for having allegedly sided with Saddam Hussein against their host country. I repeat: 250,000 Palestinians were uprooted and kicked out in the blink of an eye.

Was there an international outcry?

Did the Arab League demand an emergency UN Security Council consultation in New York?

Did the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference press for a special session at the then-UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva?

Did the BDS crowd call for a global campaign against Kuwait?

Did British unions vote to cut ties with all things Kuwaiti?

Did Irish libraries seek to ban all books by Kuwaiti authors?

Did anti-Kuwait ads appear on Seattle buses and Metro North train stations?

Did pro-Palestinian groups call for flotillas and flytillas in response to the Kuwaiti action?
The answer, tellingly, was as obvious then as it is today, when Palestinians are killed in Syria, restricted in Lebanon, and quarantined by Egypt.

Unless Israel is brought into the story, then it's just not interesting, upsetting, or newsworthy.

So, is this really all about love for the Palestinians, or is it about hatred for Israel?

The retort that I've heard more than once is that everything that has happened to Palestinians anywhere is ultimately Israel's "fault," since Israel allegedly "created" the problem.

But had the Palestinians accepted the UN's proposed two-state partition in 1947, there would have been no war at Israel's birth. And had the Arab states not opted to threaten Israel's very existence in 1967, there would have been no war then, either.

How can one side be responsible for triggering wars, yet, together with its supporters, seek to wash its hands of the consequences of those wars? After all, what wars in history have not produced refugee flows, often by the millions?

Moreover, whatever one's view of how the refugee population was created, where is the compassion and concern for Palestinians, if they're being targeted by fellow Arabs?

And finally, much as some may conveniently choose to forget, the Palestinians are not the first, last, and only refugee population in the history of the world, far from it.

But they are the first, last, and only refugee population deliberately kept in limbo for as long as 65 years in order to nurture hatred and revanchism.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a bit more honesty, and less hypocrisy, coming from those who profess to care about the Palestinians' well-being?

For them, is it really all about the Palestinians, or is it rather about Israel, pure and simple? And if the latter, what does it, in fact, tell us about their underlying motives?
A Tip 'O the Kippa to Zach, of Matt and Zach fame.

Also you should know that JPost contributor, Martin Sherman, has some significant reservations concerning Mr. Harris on the two-state solution.

It seems clear to me that the terrain is shifting on this most central of issues.

I am, I would like for you to know, opposed to the single-state solution for the very reason that we all have opposed it; it could very well mean the end of Israel as either a Jewish state or a democratic state.

But this does not mean that we should delude ourselves about the intentions of the PLO and Fatah and Hamas.

I still believe that what Israel needs to do is declare its final borders, remove the IDF to behind those borders, and then throw the keys over its shoulder.

Friday, August 30, 2013

If George Galloway had any credibility, he hasn't any longer

Mike L.

Written and published by Algemeiner.
During a debate on whether to take action in Syria Thursday, in the UK’s House of Commons, MP George Galloway denied that he said Israel supplied al-Qaeda with chemical weapons used to kill scores of Syrian civilians in an attack near Damascus last week. 
When challenged on the matter by Conservative MP Matthew Offord, Galloway replied, “I said no such thing. 
Unfortunately for Galloway, a well circulated video of his comments about Israel show his claim in parliament to be false.”

A Big Tip 'O the Kippa to Shirlee from News and Views from Jews Down Under.

Israel calm amidst Syrian war jabber

Mike L.

The snippets below were written by Herb Keinon and Yaakov Lappin and published in the Jerusalem Post:
The IDF deployed an Iron Dome battery in the greater Tel Aviv area overnight Thursday amid preparations for a potential US strike on Syria.

Jerusalem has assessed that their is a low probability that Syria would strike Israel in retaliation to Western military intervention, according to officials. Nevertheless, the deployment of the Iron Dome battery in the Gush Dan region was the latest in a number of preparations that the IDF has taken in recent days.
My distinct impression is that Israel is wary, but calm.
As of Wednesday evening, a few hundred reservists had been ordered to report for IAF duty – including Iron Dome operators – as well as for Military Intelligence and Home Front Command roles.

“We can expand the call-up if necessary. But this is not a widespread call-up,” the army source emphasized.

The IDF’s overall state of readiness is at normal, he said.
We don't really know what's coming, but my guess is that not much is.  Obama is not a fighter outside of the realm of politics, so I would not expect him to open a serious conflict with Assad.  He may very well take a few shots at the regime in order to be seen as "doing something," but I don't expect much.

I could very well be wrong, of course, and France (of all countries) is sounding bellicose, but my suspicion is that this war within Syria, however murderous and devastating it might be for the Syrians, will not elicit a major response from the western powers.

We shall see.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

IDF soldiers partying with Arabs in Hebron

Mike L.

The snippet below was written and published by JPost staff.
The Israel Defense Forces has launched an investigation after Israeli soldiers from the elite Givati Brigade were captured on camera dancing with young Palestinians at a club in the Jabara neighborhood of Hebron, Channel 2 reported Wednesday.

According to the report, the soldiers entered the club while on patrol on Monday, after hearing the song Gangnam Style by Psy coming from the building.

The footage aired by Channel 2 purportedly shows a soldier in IDF uniform, fully armed, sitting on the shoulders of a Palestinian club-goer, even clasping hands with another man at the club.

This is one of those weird little stories that I am not entirely sure what to make of.

Clearly the IDF cannot allow its soldiers on patrol to start dancing in night clubs while on duty because it can be exceedingly dangerous.  The soldier was piggy-back on someone who was dancing while holding a presumably loaded weapon.

That's not smart.

Furthermore, of course, they simply have other responsibilities while in uniform.

Nonetheless, I think that this comment, which you will find under the story, is probably quite right.
common sense • 38 minutes ago

I believe that what was displayed is a deep emotional yearning for semblance of normality/peace since it appears the dancing Arabs did not feel threatened by a fully armed soldier. Despite all the political pandering to hate Jews/Israelis by their Arab "ideologists" and political leaders, these guys may just represent a microcosm of the larger population wanting to lead a normal life. Perhaps they even appreciate their situation more as they view their fellow Arabs blowing each other up in the countries around us. I sure hope the atmosphere in that club will catch on...
One can hope.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Obama's Middle East


Israel Matzov had this lil gem. Love it!

Ethiopian Jews Arrive in Israel

Mike L.

Say hello to the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel (IBSI).

Yet Another War?

Mike L.

The snippet below was written by Ernesto Londoño and Ed O’Keefe and published in the Washington Post.
An imminent U.S. strike on Syrian government targets in response to the alleged gassing of civilians last week has the potential to draw the United States into the country’s civil war, former U.S. officials said Tuesday, warning that history doesn’t bode well for such limited retaliatory interventions.

The best historical parallels — the 1998 cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan — are rife with unintended consequences and feature little success.

“The one thing we should learn is you can’t get a little bit pregnant,” said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni...
I opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite the fact that if we go to war against Syria it will largely be for humanitarian reasons, I will probably oppose any such action there, as well.  As I have written before, there are no good options in this case.  We cannot support Assad for obvious reasons, but for reasons that are equally obvious we absolutely should not be supporting the Islamist forces against him.

Barack Obama has an exceedingly clear track record of supporting political Islam in the Middle East and if the US goes to war in Syria it will be supporting Islamist groups in that country, as well.

In truth, I am a bit ambivalent in this case, given how Assad is behaving toward his own people.  So, while I was firmly and unalterably opposed to the war in Iraq, I am a bit more squishy on this one.  I am, of course, concerned that Israel could easily get swept into the conflict.

The very last thing that we need to see are IDF incursions into sovereign Syrian territory or what would be considerably worse, Syrian military incursions in to sovereign Israeli territory.

In any case, the clouds are darkening and war drums are pounding.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Standing up for the Jewish people (or: Stuart's Folly)

Mike L.

It has to be understood that one cannot stand for the well-being of the Jewish people if one refuses to stand against political Islam.

The rise of political Islam is the foremost challenge to Jewish sovereignty and Jewish well-being in the world today.  All throughout the Middle East imams and ayatollahs cry out for Jewish blood and tell their people that the Jews are the children of apes and pigs and that we are responsible for all war and that we eat local Arab children like Cheezy-Doodles.

Islamists and anti-Jewish racists throughout the Muslim world and Europe are creating an exceedingly dangerous environment for Jews everywhere and we must acknowledge that fact, particularly since the Jews of the Middle East represent a very tiny minority.  There are sixty or seventy Muslims for every Jew in the Middle East and, for the most part, those Muslims do not accept Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

Thus political Islam represents a very real danger for Jewish people, but not only Jewish people.  If we honestly believe in universal human rights, then we have to oppose al-Sharia.

That means we need to oppose politicians, like president Barack Obama, who offer moral and military support to enemies of the Jewish people and to enemies of the United States.

Furthermore, this has to be understood as a problem primarily grounded in the western-left.

For a variety of reasons, I have tended not to support the political right-wing in the United States or the Republican Party.  Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that it is the conservatives and the political right within the United States that has, for long decades, been far more friendly to the Jewish people, and the Jewish state, than has the progressive-left.

Jewish liberals may not like me saying so, but I am not saying anything that is not entirely obvious to anyone who is observing American politics with a mind that can comprehend that when an American president pledges F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks to a country with an Islamist government, that such a president supports political Islam.

This conclusion is obvious on its face and those who deny that conclusion are deceiving themselves.

Some will say that speaking out against political Islam is "racist."  I do not agree.  Standing against political Islam is to stand against racism.  The movement for political Islam is the single most racist political movement in the world today.  Just as we liberals stood against American slavery in the nineteenth-century, and just as we stood against the Klan and the rise of the Nazis and Jim Crow, so we should stand against the rise of political Islam.

Our failure to do so is a moral failure.

What we are seeing today is the abdication of the liberal-left dedication to universal human rights.  The notion of universal human rights is central to western-liberal ideals and the degree to which the western-left fails to stand up for universal human rights is the degree to which it has betrayed its own values and, thus, betrayed its very reason to be.  What is the point of supporting the progressive-left, or the Democratic Party, if neither will stand up for their own alleged values?

There are, it must be admitted, understandable reasons why the progressive-left has failed to stand up for universal human rights throughout the world.  We refuse to stand for universal human rights because the "multicultural ideal" mitigates against it.  Those of us who come out of the left want to respect other cultures and treat them the way that we would like to be treated.  In Europe and the United States we tend no longer to believe in the "melting pot" theory of integration, but in the "salad bowl" idea.  We want people with different languages and clothing and culinary traditions and religious traditions to live cheek-by-jowl and get along in comity.

This also means, within the tension between universal human rights and the multicultural ideal, that we are exceedingly slow to criticize "indigenous" cultures out of a recognition of the history of western imperialism.  Who are we, after all - us allegedly privileged white people - to look down our noses at the off-spring of our former servants and slaves?  By what moral right are we to condemn the children and grandchildren of those who we historically abused and enslaved and persecuted and exploited?

That tends to be the general mind-set of people who think of themselves as "progressive" or "liberal" or "left" and its the tradition that I come out of, as well.  These are people seeking to be fair-minded and who have the finest of intentions.  The problem is that ultimately they have, in an unspoken outplaying of this tension, chosen the multicultural ideal over the ideal of human rights because they do not wish to offend peoples in, or from, other parts of the world.

What this means, sadly, is that women continue to be stoned to death in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran, and we keep our mouths shut.  Not only do we keep our mouth shut about these kinds of atrocities, we even denounce our fellow liberals who dare to speak up as "racist."  Throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East Gay people are treated as something worse than criminals and are summarily murdered and, yet, even the western GBLT community generally remains quiet because it does not want to be thought of as bigoted toward Arabs or Muslims.

The diaspora Jewish community is, to my view, particularly egregious in this regard.  Aside from a few rogue individualists, like activist Pamela Geller, diaspora western Jewry is sticking its head in the sand and refuses to speak out despite the fact that the Jews of the Middle East are a people under siege.  We allow Arab leaders to tell us that any future state of "Palestine" must be Judenrein and we do not forcefully object.  On the contrary, the western Jewish left tends to agree that Jewish people should not build housing for themselves on the traditionally Jewish land which, for some reason, they call by the Jordanian name "West Bank."

The Jews are maybe fourteen million people throughout the entire world.  Our numbers have been kept small by European and Arab-Muslim aggression.  Until we are ready to honestly stand up for ourselves by denouncing our foremost enemies, the Islamists, then we will always be on the defensive and our natural allies will not stand with us, because we refuse to stand up for ourselves.  The western left should stand with the Jewish people because the movement for Jewish self-determination, like  other movements for national liberation, is a movement for social justice among an historically persecuted people.

There will never be peace until the vast Arab peoples, our former rulers, accept Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land and they will never do so until non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans insist upon it.  However, non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans will not do so until we insist upon it and that means that we must stand up to this fascistic movement that is rising throughout that part of the world.

Unless we stand up for ourselves, no one else will do so for us.  And unless we forcefully speak out against the rise of political Islam, we cannot really be said to be standing up for the well-being of the Jewish people, nor even for the ideal of universal human rights, within which contemporary liberalism is grounded.

In this way, the progressive-left betrayal of the Jewish people is nothing less than the progressive-left betrayal of the progressive-left, itself.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Has George Galloway gone completely off his rocker?

Mike L.

The snippet below was written and published by Jerusalem Post staff.
British MP and veteran anti-Israel activist George Galloway on Wednesday responded to the latest alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, stating that if there has been any use of sarin gas, it was radical Islamist group al-Qaida, using gas supplied by Israel.

The Respect Party MP for Bradford West, who is a longstanding supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas, stated: "If there has been use of chemical weapons, it was al-Qaida," asking, "Who gave al-Qaida chemical weapons?"

Staring determined into the camera, Galloway stated: "Here's my theory. Israel gave them the chemical weapons."
So, without the slightest bit of evidence, British MP George Galloway is accusing Israel of providing chemical weaponry to al-Qaeda for use on innocent Syrian civilians?

Why is that when Muslims kill Muslims, Jews get the blame?

This is just perverse and blatant anti-Jewish racism and yet the man holds a seat as a British parliamentarian.  It is, in fact, nothing less than an incitement to violence against the Jewish people.

It is the blood libel.

Letter From Israel

elinor        אלינור   





Tennis tournaments are hard to follow, these days.  What happens in England is middle-of-the-night fare in eastern Australia, but it’s just right for Israel.  Jerusalem is two hours ahead of London, so Wimbledon  is easy viewing.

There is something very wrong with my left knee.  My total knee replacement of 2005 seems to be slipping, and it’s causing problems.  I fell flat on my face one day and had to have my family doctor declare that I didn’t need a CAT scan; my eyes were not showing any brain damage and my boiling anger at my klutziut convinced him.  The scar healed nicely.

The second, third and fourth times I fell I managed to keep my face off the sidewalk, but I injured my shoulders.  I declined to have them surgically repaired because I kept landing on my hands and re-injuring them, so I was referred instead to Physiotherapy. 

The physiotherapist looked at my knee in passing and said My guess is you’re trying to walk on one leg and no one can do that—even you-know-who might have walked on water, but he used both legs.  Carry your cane and consult a specialist. 

How dumb do you have to be?

The first knee surgeon said he wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. Nice touch.  But he prescribed a costly brace, which covered the knee in both directions by a hand span.  It has a hole over the kneecap and metal hinges on either side that let me bend my knee, which is the last thing I want to do.  There was also danger of muscle atrophy, which led me to use it infrequently.   It worked all right in winter but was deadly hot in summer.  One of the self-praising notes on the package of the brace promised it would ‘gently warm the area’, which I hardly required.  Further, removing it was impossible without its taking a tad of me with it, every time.

The second knee surgeon said he didn’t do that kind of surgery, but I could consult Dr So-and-so in Tel Aviv.  His initial consult costs NIS 750, he did not belong to my health fund so was a private provider, doesn’t operate at my favourite hospital; next available appointment in 4 months.  Goodbye.

When I entered the office of the third knee surgeon carrying a load of attitude, I got right to the point:  Hello, do you do revision surgery?  If not, your next patient will thank me for leaving immediately.  He smiled and said Revision surgery forms the greater part of my practice.  Please sit down.  I sat.

Show me your knee, please.  I raised my pants cuff and showed him the bright blue band around my leg, just below my knee.  What’s that?  Well…

I was watching the Wimbledon tournament.  Rafael Nadal was playing, wearing a band around his knee.  Major knee surgery had kept him away from tennis for many months.  The band must be there to stabilise his leg, I thought, and also Oh, what a lousy shot that was.

Several matches later one of my favourites, Jo Wilfred Tsonga, was down on the famous grass of the court, writhing in pain.  It had rained, he had slipped and a mass of white-coated medical personnel surrounded him.  Several minutes later he rose, unable to continue playing but wearing a band around his knee.  OK, got the idea.

I tried several versions of the tennis-player knee band until a chemist suggested a self-adhesive tape (sticks to itself, not to the limb) and at 20 shekels for 4 meters, a real bargain.  It worked.  I buried my brace and the several other tortures I’d acquired in the back of a closet and have ever since been trying to convince knee sufferers to try the blue band and tell the world about it.  Chicken soup, I reckon.

My surgeon was impressed but as my father used to say, That and 25 cents will get you onto the streetcar.  I’m no closer to repair than I was at Doctor One, but at least I can walk, I’m not in constant pain and my face has stayed off the sidewalk. 

Kudos and thanks to Rafa and Jo Wilfred.  If you see them, please thank them for me.

cross posted Geoffff's Joint

Friday, August 23, 2013

Obama is not very popular on Y-Net

Mike L.

Shocking, I know, but the commenters there are not very happy with the president of the United States.  Reuters staff wrote a very brief and very straight-forward article, published at Y-Net, entitled Obama says concerned about Syria, but cautious about costs.
President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Friday that the international community needs to find out more about whether chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and called on the Assad government to allow a full investigation.

"What we've seen indicates that this is clearly a big event, of grave concern," Obama said in an interview with CNN.
Upon initially reading this piece I simply shrugged my shoulders.  Although it may seem to you that Obama can do nothing right in my eyes, this is not actually the case.  I have been advising caution viz-a-viz Syria from the beginning because there are no good options there.  The US cannot support Assad because Assad is a brutal dictator, yet the US cannot support the opposition because the opposition is largely Islamist.  Thus, I also favor a cautious approach.  However, if you go into the comments you will see that not everyone is as friendly as I am to Barack Obama.
1. While not brilliant, Bush was a straight man.  
 Now, you got the snake pretending to be a moron. Enjoy.  
 2Mad, גולה בצרפת08.23.13)
Bush was actually smarter than we gave him credit for and considerably less "straight" than 2Mad thinks.  George W. Bush and his administration used the "War on Terror" as a way to move finances in various directions, including Cheney's Halliburton, and to shore up political support.  The man was neither dumb, nor entirely honest.
This waste of space talks more bla bla.  
Tel Em Straight seems to agree with me that Barack Obama is not nearly as intelligent as they kept insisting that he is.  I don't think that Obama is stupid.  One cannot advance to where he is while being stupid.  Nonetheless, his thinking on foreign policy, particularly in regards the Arab-Israel conflict, is both unoriginal and entirely counterproductive and is, essentially, a product of better minds that were at least as wrong as he is.
Obama go there and judge for yourself  
Sick and tired of hearing words of 'Grave Concern' and 'More Information Needed' ...This is how America prevaricates with 'Pass the buck diplomacy' This is spineless as people on a day to day basis seek international help as they go through Assad's killing machine. The "Marines " ? What are they for ?They are fearless warriors,and are all but ready at all times to go in as soon as the President fires his starting pistol. But can he find it?  
Roland Seener , London England (08.23.13)
Roland and I disagree about Syria.  Roland wants Obama to fire his starting pistol and go charging in.  If Assad continues killing his own people, he may very well be correct, but I sincerely believe that Obama is rightly erring on the side of caution.  Nonetheless, Roland has considerable contempt for the American president who he seems to suggest is "spineless."
7. Here's the real story.  
Mr. Obama has great sympathies for the Islamic world and the Arabs. He has done what he thinks he should do to "convince" the Moslems and the Arabs that America is not "pro-Israel" and anti-Moslem/Arab in the mistaken belief that this is America's best interests. He has tried to cultivate an image of America being the Moslem/Arab world's friend. He has done what he can to appease them and not antagonize them. Unfortunately, he has closed his eyes to the reality of the Moslem/Arab world's true nature and their total inability to ever achieve democracy, civility, and ethical government. It is not in their blood. The Arab spring has gone totally wacko and Mr. Obama has no idea what to do. One thing he must do, is give back that phony Peace Prize he received. There is no reason he should have received it, and there is no reason he should keep it.  
Reuven Brauner , Raanana, Israel (08.23.13)
Reuven and I agree that the Nobel committee made a tremendous error in giving Obama the Peace Prize.  He didn't earn it and he doesn't deserve it.  I also agree with Reuven that the Obama administration has no clue what to do about the so-called "Arab Spring," which was the rise of political Islam, a movement that Obama supported.

It still remains one of the central questions as to just why this administration would support the rise of a political movement throughout the Middle East that oppresses women, hangs Gay people from cranes, and seeks the genocide of the Jews.

But what's even more of a mystery is just why it is that so many American Jews would support a candidate that gives political Islam the support that he has.

Baffling, really.
8. Oblabla needs more information?  
I'll gladly send him the front page from yesterdays newspaper, showing the faces of Syrian children who, although appearing to be peacefully sleeping, were killed in the gas attack. That was more than enough information to try to absorb, but I'm sure Oblabla will remain "concerned, but cautious", or, as usual, do nothing.  
A , Belgium (08.23.13)

I have to say, that did crack me up!

I sometimes have the sense of humor of a twelve year old boy and "Oblabla" was enough to put the smile on my face.

In any case, Barack Obama has earned the contempt of people from all around the world.  They hate him in Egypt, that much is certain. The Israelis generally do not like him and I feel reasonably certain that neither do the Syrians or the Lebanese.

The reason that I do not like the guy is because his foreign policy toward the Jewish state of Israel has been entirely arrogant and entirely counterproductive.

Arrogance combined with epic failure does not make for likability.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Is Obama Capable of Learning?

Mike L.

The snippet below was written and published by Jerusalem Post staff:
US peace talks envoy Martin Indyk and his team have not taken part in any negotiating sessions between Israel and the Palestinians despite assurances that they would do so, senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo charged on Thursday.

Abed Rabbo was quoted by official Palestinian news agency WAFA as saying that the the Americans had not participated in the talks because of "an Israeli stance and demand,” adding that “this is one sign of how and where the talks are heading if the US is not able now to assert itself in the peace process.”
An Israeli "stance and demand"?

What can that possibly even mean?

The "Palestinians" are going to derail the "peace process" and then blame it on the Jews.  In fact, that is the entire point of this miserable process.

Was that not obvious from the get-go?
Negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians restarted in Washington earlier this month after a prolonged push by US Secretary of State John Kerry for their resumption. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have met three times in Jerusalem since then, twice on Tuesday and once last week in Jerusalem.

“The Americans did not participate in any negotiating session so far in spite of assurances that they will play a direct role,” WAFA quoted Abed Rabbo as saying.

Indyk and his team were present in Jerusalem during the talks, but did not sit in on the negotiations, the PLO official said.
Y'know, I'm starting to think that Barack Obama might be a tad more intelligent than I have give him credit for.  The central argument, among those of us critical of Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East, revolves around the question of whether the man is malicious or merely blinded by ideological blinkertude.  I have tended to argue the latter, because I cannot bring myself to believe that any president of the United States, including this one, would actually want to see harm done to either the Jewish people or the Jewish state.

What the above indicates, however, is that maybe Barack Obama is a pretty intelligent fellow who can learn from mistakes.  If the report above is true, it means that the Obama administration, itself, is putting little credence into this bogus "peace process."

I do not believe for one second that even Barack Obama has any faith in these negotiations.  The main reason for that, quite clearly, is because the local Arabs do not want peace.  That is, they do not want a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.  What they want is eventual victory and they are willing to sacrifice their children, and their children's children, on the bloody altar of conflict for generations to come.

The Obama administration insisted upon negotiations because all American administrations feel the need to address the issue for domestic political purposes.  Obama, who for some indiscernible reason received the Nobel Peace Prize, does not believe that he is going to actually accomplish anything, but wants to be seen as doing something.  Bill Clinton, prior to the Second Terror War (intifada), honestly believed that peace was possible between the parties.  Clinton was shocked when Yassir Arafat denied that the temple of the Jews actually ever resided in Jerusalem.  This is because he didn't quite understand at that time the nature of the Arab delegitimization campaign against the Jewish people and presumed that the local Arabs (who have absconded with the name "Palestinian") actually wanted peace for themselves and for their children.

This is clearly not the case and it is something that Barack Obama is only very slowly and very reluctantly learning.  He is learning this reluctantly because his ideological upbringing at the feet of people like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi trained him to think of the Jews of the Middle East as terrible aggressors wherein the opposite is actually the case.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration is getting spanked on foreign policy and the reason for that is because Obama has been trained into a false and counterproductive ideological stance since he was a young man.

In truth, I almost feel bad for the guy.

He doesn't really know what he is doing and that is not entirely his fault.  His teachers and professors and mentors have tended to see the Arab-Israel conflict from within the lens of a post-colonial theory that blamed the conflict on the Jews.

If the Obama administration is backing away from the "peace process," as Yasser Abed Rabbo claims, it may be because of a long, slow learning curve.

Perhaps Barack Obama is not quite as stupid as I have sometimes thought that he is.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Barack Obama's Support for the Rise of Political Islam

Mike L.

{Cross-posted at News and Views from Jews Down Under and the Times of Israel and Geoffff's Joint and Free News of the World.}

It remains fairly astonishing that most diaspora Jews still do not understand that United States president Barack Obama assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, particularly in Egypt.

One very simple fact needs to be understood by people who care about US foreign policy in the Middle East:

Barack Obama supported the rise of political Islam within that part of the world.


He did so despite the fact that devotees of political Islam (or radical Islam or Islamism) stone women to death for alleged promiscuity, hang Gay people from cranes because Allah apparently does not like Gay people, and calls for the genocide or dhimmitude of the Jews and the Christians because dhimmis, and other non-Muslims, refuse to accept Muhammad as the prophet of God.  How it is that the great majority of American Jews favor a president that supported a political movement that denigrates their own people is a question that future historians and sociologists will spend many, many hours researching and pondering.

When told that Barack Obama favored and assisted the rise of political Islam, however, many western-left Jews simply scoff.  The truth, of course, is that Obama did assist the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East and admitted it, himself.

In his September 25, 2012 speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations he said this:
It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.
The United States has supported the forces of change.

These are Obama's own words.  It is he that claims that under his administration the United States supported the so-called "Arab Spring."  So, what was the "Arab Spring"?  It should be entirely clear to everyone by this point that it was not the great up-welling of Arab democracy but the rise of political Islam, which is the theocratic-authoritarian movement to impose al-Sharia on the peoples of the world, starting with the peoples of the Middle East.

That is what Obama supported and claimed to support.  This is not a matter of hyperbole or interpretation.  He said what he said and he did what he did and we need to recognize it.  He may have done so out of either ignorance or stupidity, but that he did so is no longer open to question.  If it was ignorance, then he did so out of a belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and moderate. Perhaps Obama gave too much credence to his National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, who told Congress that "The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

How it is possible that the National Intelligence Director of the United States under Barack Obama could believe such nonsense boggles the mind.  The Muslim Brotherhood, as anyone who has done even a little research into their roots can tell you, is meant to advance Sharia, which is religious law.

It is, therefore, not secular. Furthermore, if you read prominent historical scholars who have written about the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Matthias Küntzel or Paul Berman or Jeffrey Herf, you will learn that the Brotherhood emerged in 1920s Cairo as a theocratic-fascistic movement opposed to modernity, opposed to secularism, in opposition to the west, and in racist opposition to the well-being of the Jewish people.

Although numerous countries throughout the region are falling to political Islam, I will limit my comments to Egypt because that country is among the most geo-politically significant countries in the Arab-Muslim world and because it is in Egypt that Obama has done the most damage in his work on behalf of that movement.

Obama's main efforts in assisting the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East consisted of his efforts on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a violently racist organization that was founded in the 1920s and that, like the Nazis in Germany at that time, or the Ku Klux Klan in the United States at that time, sought to impose its fascistic vision through violence.  The Muslim Brotherhood then, and the Muslim Brotherhood now, is in direct opposition to western values precisely because Sharia is directly in opposition to western values.

That Barack Obama would seek to bolster the fortunes of such a political movement is unconscionable and Jewish people and women and Gay people and all people, who do not wish to live under theocratic dominance, should object strenuously.  Part of the problem that we have, however, is that Obama's Jewish supporters tend to simply turn away their heads.  They refuse to acknowledge that which is directly before their noses.  And what that means is that we must use the evidence before us to encourage them to open their eyes.  

Obama directly claimed his support for the "Arab Spring," which is the rise of political Islam.

The Cairo Speech:

Prior to helping oust Hosni Mubarak, Barack Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood, over Mubarak's objections, to his 2009 speech in Cairo.  From the 1920s through the demise of Mubarak, throughout the period of Arab nationalism, Egyptian regimes consistently suppressed the Brotherhood and sometimes executed their leadership.  For almost a century the political tension in Egypt has been between racist military dictatorships and racist theocratic insurgents.  With the rise of Arab nationalism in the middle of the twentieth century, with Nasser leading the way, Arab theocracy throughout the Middle East was on the wane until the Iranian revolution of 1979.

By inviting the Brotherhood to the Cairo speech, Obama validated the political movement for Sharia that, in its modern form, began with Hasan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, was greatly advanced by the Iranian revolution and that is further advanced with the heinous riots and rapes and murders that are collectively known as the "Arab Spring."

Many critics condemn Obama’s Cairo speech for implying a moral equivalence between the European effort at Jewish genocide and al-Nakba (the catastrophe). The alleged “catastrophe,” of course, is that the local Arabs made war upon the Jews of the Middle East, often fighting against women and Holocaust survivors, and lost, despite their great numerical advantage. Thus at the very outset of the Obama administration he assisted in the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt while denigrating the Holocaust by suggesting a moral equivalency between the horror of the genocide of the Jews and the displacement of Arabs who likewise sought the genocide of the Jews.

Ousting Mubarak:

Barack Obama demanded that Mubarak step down knowing full-well that the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings.  Given the fact that he invited the Brotherhood to his Cairo speech he certainly knew that they were a force to be reckoned with in that country.  Since he knew the Brotherhood was a significant organization surely his advisors must have informed him about the history of the organization, including its connection to Nazi Germany.

This gets to the crux of the matter.  Either Obama knew of the Brotherhood-Nazi connection or he did not.  If he did not, then he is guilty of dangerous and shameful ignorance.  But if he did, it is worse.  If Obama understood the Brotherhood's connection to Nazi Germany then he is guilty of something a tad more serious.

In any case, by calling for Mubarak's ouster Obama helped clear a path for the Brotherhood to come to power in Egypt.

It has to be understood that when Obama called for the ouster of Mubarak he assisted the Brotherhood's rise to power and thereby assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the region.

Ensuring the Ascendancy of a Racist Regime:

The Muslim Brotherhood, after ninety long years in the political wilderness, finally came to power shortly after the election of Barack Obama and partly due to Obama's efforts.  The Egyptian election, and the referendums that followed, were not democratic because Brotherhood thugs prevented Copts from voting.  One cannot claim democratic legitimacy if one suppresses the ability of one's political opponents to express their will at the ballot box.

Nonetheless, directly after the semi-faux-democratic election in Egypt, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, flew to that country on the instructions of Barack Obama for the purpose of advancing relations between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a July 14, 2012, piece written for the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick, he writes:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Egypt on Saturday for meetings with its newly elected Islamist president and the chief of its still-dominant military council, declaring that the United States “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.”
With the rise of political Islam in Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood and now deposed president Muhammed Morsi, what civilian rule entailed was the suppression and victimization of the Copts, an increase in the oppression of women, the institutionalization of a particularly violent form of religious homophobia, and incitement of genocide toward the Jewish minority in the Middle East.

Kirkpatrick's piece emphasizes a certain even-handedness during Clinton's trip, but this does not change the fact that by visiting Morsi after the election she gave the US seal of approval to a political party, and a political movement, entirely at odds with western liberal values.

Furthermore, the United States sent the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks.  How anyone can claim that the Obama administration has not supported the rise of political Islam in the Middle East when we have it on record that he sent them heavy weaponry is simply irrational.

Why it Matters:

If the Jewish people are not the most persecuted people on the entire planet within the last few mellennia we are certainly among the most persecuted.  From the seventh century until the current moment Arab majoritarian conquerors in the Middle East have kept the tiny Jewish minority in a state of perpetual self-defense.  For thirteen centuries the Jews of the Middle East lived as dhimmis under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule.

In Martin Gilbert's In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, we learn that for the dhimmi:

There could be no building of new synagogues or churches. Dhimmis could not ride horses, but only donkeys; they could not employ a Muslim. Jews and Christians alike had to wear special hats, cloaks and shoes to mark them out from Muslims... A dhimmi could not - and cannot to this day - serve in a Muslim court as witness in a legal case involving a Muslim... men could enter public bathhouses only when they wore a special sign around their neck distinguishing them from Muslims... Sexual relations with a Muslim woman were forbidden, as was cursing the Prophet in public - an offense punishable by death. (pgs. 32 - 33)
The system of dhimmitude is central to Sharia law and it is a return to Sharia law that is the goal of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Sharia is, obviously non-democratic and thus Obama's support for the rise of political Islam under the cloak of "democracy" was a falsehood from the start, whether he realized it or not.

The question is not if Obama supported the rise of political Islam, but just why he did so?  Some contend that he did so because of a desire to support democracy, but political Islam is non-democratic even if it comes to power through the ballot box.  Others maintain that Obama is actually a crypto-Muslim and that he therefore supports the rise of political Islam because he is in sympathy with that fascistic movement.  My suspicion is that the former explanation carries considerably more weight.

What drives Barack Obama is not malice, nor a desire to see the rise of political Islam or to undermine the United States in the region, but a deep naivety and ideological blinkertude that is exceedingly dangerous to the Jews of the Middle East, if not everyone else in the Middle East.

One can support democracy without supporting any and all political outcomes.  The United States government has an obligation to its citizenry to support their vital national interests.  There was a time when American governments understood this.  Under this administration, however, it is no longer the case.  If you believe that Obama's intentions are essentially benevolent then you must believe that his administration's efforts in that part of the world are intended to foster the greater good for everyone, as well as to support American interests in the region.

In both cases he has failed almost entirely. Thankfully, the Egyptian people and the Egyptian military fought back against political Islam in their country.

Nonetheless, embracing the Muslim Brotherhood was merely one in a string of foreign policy cognitive errors, but it was definitely among the worst and certainly suggested to this writer that this president could not be trusted.

That much is certain.

The Charade Goes On

Mike L.

The snippets below were written by Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon and published in the Jeruslam Post.
Referring to recent Israeli plans to build housing units in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods, the PLO leaders said: “The PLO Executive Committee considers the unprecedented settler decisions which were announced by the occupation government as conclusive proof that Israel’s first and last option remains expansionism, Judaization and theft of Palestinian land, and not ending occupation and implementing the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders.”
It's all about spreading the propagandistic talking points in the ongoing delegitimization of Israel and the Jews of the Middle East.

"Settlers."  "Settlements."  "Occupation."  "Expansionism."  "Judaization."  "Theft."

And all in one sentence!

This charade is playing out pretty much the way that I expected it would.  The Americans call for talks.  The Israelis agree, but the Arabs hedge.  The Israelis make concessions, which the Arabs pocket and then simply demand more concessions.  Ultimately the Arabs refuse to negotiate or walk away from the table and the Euro-Arab axis, along with the American administration and the progressive-left (including progressive-left Jews), blame Israel for Arab intransigence.  This will lead to violence and, as John Kerry put it, delegitimization "on steroids."

This is all very predictable because we've seen this show before.
The committee warned that Israel’s actions would prompt the PA leadership to reassess its position toward the peace talks.
What we need to do is insist to everyone that demanding that Jews not be allowed to live, and therefore build, on historically Jewish land - in Judea, for crying out loud - is racist on its face.  One of the biggest mistakes that the Jewish left has made, and they have made many, is in justifying Arab racism towards Jews who choose to live in Judea or Samaria.  Every time a well-meaning, but exceedingly stupid, diaspora Jew calls for the dismantling of the "settlements" he or she is telling the world that, yes, Jews are not worthy to live where neither Mahmoud Abbas nor Barack Obama want them to live.

As for the talking points above, it's pure projection.  But they always do this.  They always accuse the Jews of whatever heinous crimes it is that they are committing.  The Jews are not "settlers" and their towns and cities are not "settlements."  The Jewish people are the native, indigenous people in that part of the world and their Arab tormentors are the off-spring of their former masters under the system of slavery known as dhimmitude after the Arab conquest of the 7th century.

This is perhaps what is so galling about this entire charade.  The Jews of the Middle East have been the victims of a particularly brutal form of Arab-Muslim imperialism that lasted for 13 centuries and then, when the Jewish people finally attained our freedom with the fall of the Ottoman empire - and thus the fall of the system of dhimmitude - the vast Arab majority then launched a war against the Jews in the Middle East that has lasted until this very day.  Yet, they have the shamelessness to then turn around and blame the Jews for our own persecution and call us "illegal."  And the progressive-left, including many, if not most, progressive-left Jews, buy into this fantasy.

And all within living memory of the Holocaust.

And therein, I think, lies the true tragedy.

It's one thing for anti-Jewish racist Arabs to demand a Judenrein state of "Palestine" and it's one thing for their European allies to go along with that racist demand, but to see diaspora Jews going along with it, as well, and in the name of "human rights" is just appalling.

The irony and stupidity could not be more cruel.
“We hold the US administration responsible for stopping these Israeli war crimes and attempts to foil the peace process,” the leaders said in a statement. “The last settlement steps contradict assurances that the Palestinian Authority received during preparatory talks for launching the negotiations.”
So, the PLO, a terrorist organization that Israel should never have recognized to begin with, considers a Jewish presence on Jewish land to be a "war crime" do they?  And they consider such a presence as an attempt to foil the peace process?  This is a game and it's purpose is not to bring about a 23rd Arab state, but to facilitate the long Arab war against the Jews, which is currently in the delegitimization phase.

The goal is to turn as much of the world community against the tiny Jewish minority in that part of the world as possible.  They've already managed to turn the Europeans and now the idea is to turn the Americans.  Once that happens Israel will be more or less helpless in the face of Arab / European / American pressure and will be forced back to something equivalent to what Abba Eban called the "Auschwitz borders."  Needless to say, this will not end Arab hostility toward the Jewish minority in the Middle East, but will embolden it, precisely because victory is emboldening.

This is an exceedingly perilous moment and if the "peace process" plays out as I expect that it will, we are going to see some very ugly developments in the coming few years.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Why Is Bob Carr Itching For A Fight Over The Arab/Muslim/Left Cold War Against Israel?

"All [Jews]*on "Palestinian land" are illegal under international law ... that is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

[*offensive weasel word deleted]


Make no mistake he wants this argument.

 He seriously can not expect the Government to be re-elected so he wants this to be his legacy. He wants to deliver the ALP to the Arab/Muslim/Left side of the cold war against Israel because he thinks that will make this a better world. Then we can expect him to see out the rest of his political career as the Jimmy Carter of the Australian Senate. 

 He locked himself  into the timing of this argument with those who reckon dumping on the only decent humane liberal free productive law-ruled human rights based democracy within a neighbourly missile range and where pretty most everyone else are at bloody war with themselves might be a little on the Bizzaroland end of the Superman comic for even a nerd like him when last year he famously complained to just about anybody who would listen about what he was supposed to say the next time he was speaking in public at the end of Ramadan from ... you know ... those steps. He said it. Not me. 

This is one suggestion he received:

The Arab "right of return" to Israel is the greatest crock in history. You must implore the "Palestinians" to accept Israel, accept Palestine, accept peace and live in security and prosperity in economic union with Israel. And if they do not then they have forfeited all Australian sympathy. Their leaders will forever remain the authors of their own people's misery and to say anything else is to feed a delusion and is anti-"Palestinian" .

So what did he say? 

Now we know. As you can see he did not take on board all of this blog's advice in anything approaching full measure. 

And we also know that if you want to hear major and emphatic statements on foreign policy concerning Israel and the Jews then you need to know  what this FM says when he is addressing a Muslim audience in Lakemba on Eid al-Fitr. No need to take a camera. SBS covers it.

This is what he said.

” I’ve been to Ramallah, I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace. And that means respect for the right of Israel to exist. But we want that Palestinian state to exist, in the context of a peace in the Middle East, and that’s why we say, unequivocally, all settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease. That is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

He also said he was proud about rolling the PM last year and humiliating her because she was showing too much backbone standing up to yet another big push from the tyrannies and the trenblies intent on appeasing and rewarding "Palestine" with an UN vote upgrade for ignoring its own treaties, rejecting Israel with undisclosed contempt and doing its best to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible and a good many more of their own besides. 

Perhaps not in so many words but something is clear. Carr regards this as a highlight of his career and perhaps his greatest achievement as FM. 

No one want to fight the Arab/Israel wars all over again least of all during an Australian election campaign except apparently Carr and the ALP. For now they can have that on their own. Even the Greens are doing their best to hide what they are about and to keep the ugliest of their uglies strapped to the walls in an underground basement with ball gags so members of the public don't accidentally see or hear one of them.

Here are a few reasons why this speech is a pretty classless act for an Australian Government at any time but especially right now; apart from the dubious merits of a smelly case. Pick your own order. Some are worse than others. Some are real bad.

  • Claiming that "the settlements" are illegal is not just wrong in law on several levels but deeply offensive at a visceral level. If these people are "illegal" there is no law as we understand it. Instead there are the laws of Nuremberg  or Sharia. It is that basic. We are better off without this law. What is at stake is the very concept of law. There is a vast difference between saying that "settlement activity" is unhelpful, or even a tactical or strategic  mistake, and saying that the settlements are illegal. The former is a matter of opinion and as it happens the Israeli Government apparently agrees given there has been  a de facto freeze for some time. The latter is to declare that the Middle East Jews almost all of whom now live in Israel do not have the same basic legal, civil and human rights as everyone else in the Middle East and the world simply by virtue of being Jews. This is the law of dhimmitude. There is a duty to ignore laws like that and take the consequences.
  • The allegation of illegality is directed at civilians and not just a state and have as its object a sham legal justification to dispossess and displace these people, precisely what the Geneva Conventions are meant to condemn. Therefore it is an inversion. 
  • There are face to face negotiations in progress between the PA and Israel; the first in years and they are about these core issues such as what is "Palestinian land".  No one expects the talks to come to much but an enormous effort has gone into arranging them especially by the US and Israel that has had to pay a terrible price just to get the Palestinians to the table. Carr pre-empts all this with a speech which might not have attracted much attention in the heat of an election campaign, and indeed there is evidence he did not want too much domestic attention, but which you and he can be certain would be all around the clouds from here to Gaza in a flash.Australian FM says the Jews are illegal from outside mosque during Eid al-Fitr.  That is also the prevailing opinion in the Middle East outside Israel and there are other laws around there that could freeze your blood in the arteries. One might have hoped that diplomatic courtesy among friends and the need to be seen to be acting with some sense of propriety would  compel Carr to at least pretend he was taking the Middle East peace process seriously especially now that Australia is on the Security Council.
  • I've  been to Ramallah, ... we support their aspirations ... and that means respect for the right of Israel to exist.... But ...  There is no reassurance in these words. The "moderate Palestinians" have no difficulty mouthing what people like Carr want to hear and Carr and others are certain not to probe. This is because it is code. It is a language with meanings on two planes and no intersection. To the "moderate' enemies of Israel it means the right of Israel to exist but not as a sovereign Jewish state. Not as a sovereign state at all really because it requires Israel to open its borders to five million or more Arabs around the world who claim to be refugees from 1948 even though almost none were yet born. As this can never be accepted by free people it is code for never ending war, or war until there are no free people.  
  • The timing and place even appear to have been calculated to exploit possible ethnic divisions and flame community fears for political advantage. It shows no sensitivity for the very real concerns of Australian Jews and others about the spread of antisemitism including violence around the world and to Australia. What does the Australian government think of Jews and their future in the world? They tell you in a speech to Muslims at least some of whom are pretty clear about what they think about that future. That the government is silent on the systematic racist hate agenda of the "Palestinian" schools, politics, mosques and media compounds this. Just like "Palestinian" intransigence it cannot be acknowledged.
  • It emboldens the existentialist core of anti-Israelism and weakens efforts to nurture a rational new idealism to finding a solution to the condition of "Palestinians" and all other Arabs living under the perverse political cultures of the Arab/'Muslim world. As such it is anti-"Palestinian", anti-Arab and betrays those risking there lives to free the people from Iran to Ramallah. As such it makes war more likely.
  • It adds to isolation of Israel who knows this is an existentialist struggle even while Carr and Hague are in denial and are mesmerised by the one big lie that this is a rational struggle by a national group for a state of their own despite all the evidence. As such it makes war more likely.
  • This giant policy shift was made at the behest of the UK in a joint communiqué on 18 January 2013. There are very strong historical reasons to regard the UK as in a particularly poor position to assert what is international law when it comes to Israel, Palestine and the Jews. There are also strong historical reasons for Australia to not echo the UK on this.  Not heed the British at all really. Given their record they are disqualified as honest brokers. So is the rest of Europe.

    “All settlements are illegal under international law and settlement activity undermines prospects for peace.”

    George Orwell once remarked that the defining vice of the British is hypocrisy. He would know. Never mind the Israelis. This is offensive to Australians.

    Once again the Australian Government has shown it has no understanding of the Middle East and that it is determined things will stay that way.
    Three more weeks.
cross posted Geoffff's Joint