Archive for March, 2011

The West supports a Judenrein Palestine
March 28, 2011

March 27, 2011

The West supports a Judenrein Palestine

By Matthew M. Hausman,

In seeking to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, the Obama Administration, European Union, and western media have displayed a cynical contempt for history that is astounding in its breadth and scope. Pressure is brought to bear solely on Israel, who is expected to sacrifice sovereignty and security in the name of an ideal that is premised on a repudiation of the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancient homeland.

The Palestinians are expected to concede nothing — not even their oft-stated goal of the phased destruction of Israel. Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab “right of return” with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Like the Nazis with whom the Mufti and other Arab leaders were so closely allied during the Second World War, they seek to create a Judenrein state as a springboard for the elimination of a Jewish presence in the Mideast. Ironically, western progressives are enabling the process, even though it entails human rights violations that would certainly be illegal in liberal democracies.

The continuing support for the Palestinian cause by the United States and European Union — and their contribution of billions of dollars that fund antisemitic propaganda masquerading as school curriculum, line the pockets of the corrupt Abbas regime or end up in the coffers of Hamas — would indicate an abdication of reason if the true goal were to achieve a lasting, substantive peace. However, such behavior is not incongruous if the real purpose is political realignment with the Arab-Muslim world at the expense of Israel’s integrity as a democratic, Jewish nation. Although Obama and the EU claim only to support the rights of the Palestinians as an indigenous people, they have adopted the cause by uncritically promoting a revisionist narrative that is built on a denial of Jewish history. However, the Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term “Palestinian” was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish people originated in ancient Israel; the Palestinians did not.

The Arab-Muslim world’s true intentions regarding peace with Israel should be apparent from its centuries-long oppression and subjugation of Jews in Arab lands and its stated refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation. The two-state solution is proffered as a ruse for the destabilization of Israel, and western apologists are complicit in the charade by their refusal to insist on Arab recognition of Jewish historical rights, and by their failure to condemn the Palestinian goal of state building through ethnic cleansing. Whereas any perceived attempt by Israel to transfer Arab populations would certainly inspire international condemnation, the Palestinians’ open and notorious aim of expelling Jews from historically Jewish lands — lands that were never part of any sovereign Arab nation — is met with conspicuous silence or tacit approval. Indeed, President Obama’s demand last year for a building freeze in Jerusalem was a blatant attempt to coerce Israel to implement apartheid-like measures against her own citizens in order to limit the Jewish population of her capital.

Nevertheless, Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria, and Israel proper, including Jerusalem, was a fact from antiquity into modern times — until Jordan conquered the territories and dispossessed their Jewish inhabitants during Israel’s War of Independence. When Jordan (then known as Transjordan) conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948, it expelled the Jews living there, collectively dubbed these territories the “West Bank,” and annexed them in violation of international law. Israel’s subsequent acquisition of these lands in 1967 in truth effectuated their liberation from foreign occupation; and renewed Jewish habitation thereafter constituted nothing more than repatriation. Israel’s liberation and administration of Judea and Samaria were perfectly legitimate under prevailing standards of international law, despite Palestinian claims to the contrary. In fact, it is Palestinian land-claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan’s transfer of its negotiating “rights” over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process. Because Jordan seized these lands illegally, however, it never possessed lawful title in the first place, and accordingly had no legitimate rights to convey to the PA.

In consideration of these facts, it is reasonable to question why Israel should even entertain the notion of a two-state solution, particularly as it requires her to discount the indigenous heritage of her own people and surrender ancestral lands to those who unapologetically call for her destruction. One must also question the wisdom of negotiating with the PA, which could easily be displaced by Hamas through open revolt or by an Islamist-influenced election such as occurred in Gaza. This is a particular concern in view of the political upheavals currently sweeping across the Arab world, where popular unrest has reinforced the legitimacy of military juntas and strengthened the political profile of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Alternative Solutions

In determining the permanent status of Judea and Samaria, many advocates believe Israel instead should be guided by the principles laid out at the San Remo Conference of 1920, during which the Supreme Council of Principal Allied Powers made decisions implicating the future of the territories they liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The Council among other things incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its program and recognized that the Jews comprised a people defined not solely by religion, but by nationality and descent as well. Moreover, it recognized that the Jews were indigenous to the Land of Israel and, accordingly, that they had the right to self-determination in their homeland. The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 further guaranteed the right of “close settlement,” which recognized that Jews could settle anywhere west of the Jordan. No similar recognition was accorded Palestinian-Arab nationality at that time because it simply did not exist. Rather, the local Arabs considered themselves to be culturally part of the greater Syrian community, and much of their population had accrued through late migration into the area only after the Jews had begun rehabilitating the land and creating economic opportunities that did not exist elsewhere in the Mideast.

The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations — and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine — evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews’ status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state. Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews’ indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the “Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel’s expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.

If a state of Palestine were to be created, any policies requiring the ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants would violate international law as recognized at San Remo and under the original Mandate for Palestine, which the United Nations is currently bound to honor by virtue of Section 80 of the U.N. Charter. Such ethnic cleansing would also contravene the precepts set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other conventions. Thus, in order to exist in compliance with international law, such a state would have to provide for the Jews — as indigenous people — to remain on their ancestral lands in Judea and Samaria. It would also need to recognize the Jewish right of close settlement. Jewish residents of such a state would have to retain Israeli citizenship and be governed by Israeli law, and the Arab state subsuming their communities would have to recognize Israeli sovereignty within their enclaves. Jews wishing to travel to Israel proper would have to be free to do so without harassment. Such arrangements exist in other parts of the world, for example, in North America, where Alaskans cut off from the mainland United States are permitted to travel through Canada in order to visit the lower Forty-Eight, or in Europe where citizens of EU countries are permitted to travel across national borders unimpeded. Indeed, the Quartet seeks to impose just such an arrangement on Israel by demanding that Gaza be connected by a corridor to a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.

It is unlikely, however, that a Palestinian state would recognize any Jewish rights or permit Jewish residency. It is equally unlikely that it would recognize Jewish autonomy or Israeli sovereignty. Thus, a more realistic scenario — if there is to be a Palestinian entity — might be the creation of a federation or confederation in which some of the territories currently under Israeli administration would be linked with Jordan, where a majority of the population already identifies as Palestinian. A “confederation” could be created by ceding some territory for a semi-autonomous region that would then be joined with Jordan under an umbrella government of general, limited powers. The concept of confederation provides that Jordan and a Palestinian entity would each maintain individual sovereignty and would exercise unilateral powers outside the scope of the general government’s jurisdiction. The authority of the general government would be limited to those powers specifically agreed upon by the constituent entities. The risk of confederation, however, is that the entities could elect to separate in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.

A similar but distinct concept is “federation,” in which sovereign authority would be constitutionally allocated among the member states and the general government, but in which the structure of government could not be altered by the unilateral acts of its constituents. That is, neither entity could dissolve the union in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. Such a federation would consist of Jordan and a Palestinian entity created on land transferred from Judea and Samaria, but would not include Jewish towns or population centers. Likewise, Israel would retain control of all land necessary to ensure her security and to protect her water rights in the Jordan valley. These same constraints on land transfers would apply to a confederation as well.

Regardless of the technical form, the resulting Palestinian-Jordanian entity would be independent from Israel and would include no land or power sharing in Jerusalem, which would remain exclusively under Israel’s dominion and control. Jerusalem was never the capital of any sovereign Arab nation, and Jordan’s illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 does not provide a legal basis for Palestinian claims over the city. In contrast, Israel does have a lawful historical claim to Jerusalem, in which Jews have constituted the majority population for generations, since long before Israeli independence to the present day. Moreover, Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Jewish kingdoms that were the only sovereign nations ever to occupy the land. Consequently, there can be no justification for dividing the city. Arabs residing in Jerusalem would remain subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, and Israel would continue to protect and facilitate access to all religious sites and shrines as she always has done.

Israel could enforce a similar arrangement between Gaza and Egypt, after which Israel would sever any remaining connection to Gaza. Thus, Egypt would be solely responsible for servicing Gaza’s infrastructure, utility, and humanitarian needs, leaving Israel to concentrate on consolidating and enhancing her security presence along her southern border.

These concepts are not new or unique, but rather were the subject of analysis and debate in the 1990s by the late Daniel J. Elazar, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others. Proposals involving these and similar models were put forth as alternatives to a free-standing Palestinian state. At the time, a federal model was considered by many to be a more workable paradigm than independent Palestinian statehood for protecting Israeli security, particularly by those who recognized that the Oslo process tended to sacrifice Israeli rights and security concerns. Proponents of some kind of Arab federal union believed that the costs of administering a hostile population would continue to grow, but that an independent state of Palestine would threaten Israel’s security and pose an existential challenge to her long-term survival. These ideas are regaining currency today in part because the political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences. It is likely that such a state would quickly become a terrorist haven and a hostile military threat, particularly if it were to be created from lands that currently provide Israel with strategic security buffers.

Not everyone believes that the creation of such entities will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, there is growing support in some segments of Israeli society for formal annexation of Judea and Samaria, in whole or in part, or for de facto annexation through the extension of Israeli civil law into these territories. Although there may be disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategy, there is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns, instead of waiting passively while a two-state plan is foisted upon them by outside powers who have no regard for Israeli sovereignty.

Despite international pressure for the creation of a Palestinian state devoid of Jews, Israel must be guided by her own priorities, and must not lose sight of the rights of Jews as indigenous people in their homeland, including those rights recognized at San Remo and reinforced by the Mandate. A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history. Unfortunately, American and European support for a Judenrein Arab state illustrates that international law is not applied equitably when the net effect would be the validation of historical Jewish rights or Israeli national integrity. Therefore, Israel must resist all calls for her to sacrifice her security needs and Jewish character, and should work instead to expose the double standard underlying the international community’s unjust and unreasonable demands.

ALERT! Counter CAMPAIGN TO DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL
March 26, 2011

COUNTER THE CAMPAIGN ACCUSING ISRAEL OF COMMITTING GENOCIDE IN GAZA TO APPLY THE UN’s “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” DOCTRINE TO JUSTIFY ATTACKING ISRAEL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UN!

This is excellent outstanding material to combat the Dehumanize, Delegitimize, Boycott and Sanction campaigns of the Arabs!  It is crucial that we get this information out there.  Print these out and distribute them as fliers everywhere:  on cars, on public boards etc. and in newspapers!


The campaign to delegitimize Israel is now leading to a campaign accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza to apply the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine created by Samantha Powers (foreign affairs advisor to Obama and wife of Cass Sustein) which has been adopted by the UN and which is currently the doctrine Obama used to attack Lybia without Congressional approval or oversight — on the basis of UN Authority.

Israel is in DANGER AND WE MUST COMBAT THE LIE THAT ISRAEL IS CARRYING OUT A HOLOCAUST AGAINST THE ARABS!  This would be the justification for the UN coalition forces together with the US to attack Israel and destroy her.  That has always been the goal and they have already gotten too far with this strategy!  If we don’t act now, I’m afraid it will be too late!  Not only for Israel, but for the entire Jewish people in the Diaspora!

Even though we all know it is ludicrous and cynically sick propaganda, similar to the idea of Libya being on the UN Human Rights Council of the United Nations, we must be pro-active in our efforts of telling the real truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Apartheid_Week#Criticism

There are millions of unsuspecting citizens of the world who consume this garbage because they hear no other message or are unfortunately illiterate or delinquent. Please do your bit in distributing this short photo essay. It says it all.


Obama’s Solution: Amputation and More Amputation to the Body of Israel
March 26, 2011

Stanley Zir

Edited by Susan North & Buddy Macy
OUR PURPOSE
 

Fulfilling the mandate of the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence: Establishing the line which must not be crossed… a line which serves as a hedge of protection around the nation of Israel.

RALLY CALL


Israel can no longer be sabotaged by proposals cloaked in the name of peace and continue to survive. Our goal is the uniting of Jews and non-Jews in one purpose of mind, leaving no doubt there is a line which must not be crossed, and which we will defend to protect and secure the sovereign state of Israel.

For years, pundits have been analyzing and suggesting solutions to every event that chronicles the obvious injustice Israel faces, but to what avail? It’s now 2011, the free world, and, most especially, Israel, is under attack by Obama’s policies.

Obama’s solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute – amputation and more amputation to the Body of Israel – thus bringing upon her ultimate death. Instead of submitting ourselves as a hapless victim to his knife, the Jewish People must take a proactive stance.  We need to unite as one and take up the call for an immediate end to negotiations with people who have become nothing more than foot soldiers in Iran’s global terrorist’s enterprise. Whether it is Hamas, or Fatah, whether you label them religious terrorists or secular moderates, the DNA of hate and the destruction of Israel is the glue that binds these political parties to a common objective: Their determination is to create another terrorist Islamic state with “East Jerusalem” as its capital. (There never was a “west bank or east JERUSALEM” until the terms were invented to erase the real names which for thousands of years have been and remain JUDEA, SAMARIA and JERUSALEM).

At the end of the day, to be victorious we need a Proclamation whose Declaration unites us in one purpose, one heart, when discussing the business of securing the survival of Israel. It must be one that keeps us on a steady course as we advance towards this objective, not one of half measures that keep us scattered in every direction by the winds of change and uncertainty.

Never Again is Now is that proclamation; it is the inspiration for the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence. Its contents are a suitable vessel with which to directly address the issue of securing the survival of Israel, as it provides a litmus test establishing a line which cannot be crossed – the line which serves as a hedge of protection around the nation of Israel.

To secure that line, we need an oath to take the necessary steps to insure a stop order on any policy which would comprise the defense and survival of the sovereign nation of Israel – an oath that upholds the tenets of the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence.
 
With those in agreement, I urge that this Declaration be read aloud at the beginning of any meeting, setting protocol for addressing the business of securing the survival of the Jewish State – thus giving teeth to its decree that “Never Again Means Never Again.”
 
The Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence:


Upholding the Mandates of Liberty’s Just Cause
 
Nathan Hale, in an act of defiance, declared: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” Why did this proclamation have such a powerful impact on the people of his day? Because, it captured the essence of their convictions and clearly and powerfully expressed sentiments that they could rally around to defend against, and defeat, an enemy that threatened to destroy them. For all practical purposes, the baton for peace in the Middle East that has been passed down by every U.S. President has become nothing but a truncheon used for Israel’s destruction. After more than 40 years of fruitless dialogue with the Arab states, the vultures of death are now circling Israel; she is boxed in on all sides.

With Obama’s final push to establish another terrorist Islamic state, how can we as a free people observe this act of betrayal and not scream out in disgust! Does he expect us to just sit here and watch everything we stand for be desecrated and defiled? Now, as with America’s Founding Fathers, the Jewish People must declare their independence from his current policy that can only lead to the destruction of Israel.

The Never Again is Now Coalition was established in 2008 for this stated purpose, as it provides a rallying point for Jews and non-Jews alike to unite against any policy that dictates that the Jewish People must again go silently into the night. The Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence, as a Never Again decree, addresses this issue.

Its purpose is clear, demanding that all agreements between Israel and other nations must be accountable to the core values that advance liberty’s just purpose and noble cause – securing this world as a sanctuary, free from the forces that the governance of fascism, hatred and tyranny brings.

Since lies are the tools that fascists and tyrannies use to complete their circuitry of deceit, all nations must abide by and honor the decrees that support the tenets of freedom as the seal to bind any and all peace agreements between Israel and all other nations.

To verify if those who honor and enforce the above mandate give teeth to its demands, we authored the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence. As a never again decree, it clearly achieves this objective.  Why? It demands that peace agreements offered by nations whose tyrannical protocol embraces the persecution of and/or hatred of Jews, and the destruction of Israel, be rebuked!…. while confirming that nations which champion freedom’s cause stand unequivocally in opposition to any and all agreements that sanction the insidious notion that “terrorists/fascists and Israel are equal partners for peace.”    

All Signatories


Let it be known that all of the signatories to the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence support and proclaim that as a sovereign nation, Israel’s right of self-determination is sacrosanct.

Furthermore, Israel retains the exclusive and irrevocable right to establish the rules of engagement or disengagement from any agreements concerning the status and survival of the Jewish State.

Notwithstanding, is the Jewish People’s right to censure any parties, nations or international institutions which do not recognize a united Jerusalem as  the capital of Israel – an irrevocable right that is reserved exclusively for the citizens of the sovereign nation of Israel.

Please visit www.neveragainisnow.com and, if you have not signed the Declaration, add your name to the 22,000 signatories, including 800 Holocaust survivors, who support the ideals expressed in the Jewish People’s Declaration of Independence. Then, pass this email on to everyone on your Twitter and Facebook lists. We also request your support by forwarding this email to Glen Beck me@glennbeck.com and news@glennbeck.com, a great supporter of Israel.
 
Action Alerts will be forthcoming from Never Again is Now on how we can use the Declaration to consolidate our forces to put a stop order on any policy that would lead to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish People.
 
Thank You,
Stanley Zir
Buddy Macy
Founders of Never Again is Now
E-mail: NeverAgainIsNow@live.com

Our World: Three Jewish children
March 19, 2011

By Caroline Glick

People are no longer ashamed to parade negative feelings toward Jews.

Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when the Palestinian terrorists pounced on her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed on Friday night in their home in Itamar.

The terrorists stabbed Ruth to death as she came out of the bathroom. With both parents and the newborn dead, they moved on to the other children, going into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi’s sons Yoav (11) and Elad (four) were sleeping. They stabbed them through their hearts and slit their throats.

The murderers apparently missed another bedroom where the Fogels’ other sons, eight-year-old Ro’i and two-year-old Yishai were asleep because they left them alive. The boys were found by their big sister, 12-year-old Tamar, when she returned home from a friend’s house two hours after her family was massacred.

Tamar found Yishai standing over his parents’ bodies screaming for them to wake up.

In his eulogy at the family’s funeral on Sunday, former chief rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau told Tamar that her job from now on is to be her surviving brothers’ mommy.

In a rare move, the Prime Minister’s Office released photos of the Fogel family’s blood-drenched corpses.

They are shown as they were found by security forces.

There was Hadas, dead on her parents’ bed, next to her dead father Udi.

There was Elad, lying on a small throw rug wearing socks. His little hands were clenched into fists. What was a four-year-old to do against two grown men with knives? He clenched his fists. So did his big brother.

Maybe the Prime Minister’s Office thought the pictures would shock the world. Maybe Binyamin Netanyahu thought the massacre of three little children would move someone to rethink their hatred of Israel.

That was the theme of his address to the nation Saturday night.

Netanyahu directed most of his words to the hostile world. He spoke to the leaders who rush to condemn Israel at the UN Security Council every time we assert our right to this land by permitting Jews to build homes. He demanded that they condemn the murder of Jewish children with the same enthusiasm and speed.

He shouldn’t have bothered.

The government released the photos on Saturday night. Within hours, the social activism website My Israel posted a short video of the photographs on YouTube along with the names and ages of the victims.

Within two hours YouTube removed the video.

What was Netanyahu thinking? Didn’t he get the memo that photos of murdered Jewish children are unacceptable? If they’re published, someone might start thinking about the nature of Palestinian society.

Someone might consider the fact that in the Palestinian Authority, anti-Jewish propaganda is so ubiquitous and so murderous that killing the Fogel babies was an act of heroism. The baby killers knew that by murdering Udi, Ruth, Hadas, Yoav and Elad they would enter the pantheon of Palestinian heroes. They can expect to have a sports stadium or school in Ramallah or Hebron built for them by the Palestinian Authority and underwritten by American or European taxpayers.

And indeed, the murder of the Fogel children and their parents was greeted with jubilation in Gaza.

Carnivals were held in the streets as Hamas members handed out sweets.

Obviously YouTube managers are not interested in being held responsible for someone noticing that genocidal Jew hatred defines Palestinian society – and the Arab world as a whole. But they really have no reason to be concerned. Even if they had allowed the video to be posted for more than an hour, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

The enlightened peoples of Europe, and growing numbers of Americans, have no interest in hearing or seeing anything that depicts Jews as good people, or even just as regular people. It is not that the cultured, intellectual A-listers in Europe and America share the Palestinians’ genocidal hatred of the Jewish people.

The powerful newspaper editors, television commentators, playwrights, fashion designers, filmmakers and professors don’t spend time thinking about how to prepare the next slaughter. They don’t teach their children from the time they are Hadas and Elad Fogel’s ages that they should strive to become mass murderers. They would never dream of doing these things. They know there is a division of labor in contemporary anti-Semitism.

The job of the intellectual luminaries in Western high society today is to hate Jews the old-fashioned way, the way their greatgrandparents hated Jews back in the days of the early 20th century before that villain Adolf Hitler gave Jewhating a bad name.

Much has been made of the confluence of anti-Semitic bile pouring out of the chattering classes. From Mel Gibson to Julian Assange to Charlie Sheen to John Galliano, it seems like a day doesn’t go by without some new celebrity exposing himself as a Jew hater.

It isn’t that the beautiful people and their followers suddenly decided that Jews are not their cup of tea (or rail of cocaine). It’s just that we have reached the point where people no longer feel embarrassed to parade negative feelings towards Jews.

A DECADE ago, the revelation that French ambassador to Britain Daniel Bernard referred to Israel as “that shi**y little country,” was shocking. Now it is standard fare. Everyone who is anyone will compare Israel to Nazi Germany without even realizing this is nothing but Holocaust denial.

The post-Holocaust dam reining in anti-Semitism burst in 2002. As Jewish children and parents like the Fogels were being murdered in their beds, on the streets, in discotheques, cafés and supermarkets throughout Israel, fashionable anti-Semites rejoiced at the opportunity to hate Jews in public again.

The collective Jew, Israel was accused of everything from genocide to infanticide to just plain nastiness.

Israel’s leaders were caricatured as Fagin, Shylock, Pontius Pilate and Hitler on the front pages of newspapers throughout Europe. IDF soldiers were portrayed as Nazis, and Israeli families were dehumanized.

No longer civilians with an inherent right to live, in universities throughout the US and Europe, Israeli innocents were castigated as “extremist-Zionists” or “settlers” who basically deserved to be killed.

Professors whose “academic” achievements involved publishing sanitized postmodern versions of anti-Jewish Palestinian propaganda were granted tenure and rewarded with lucrative book contracts.

Today, when properly modulated, Jew hatred is a career maker. Take playwright Caryl Churchill’s 1,300- word anti-Semitic monologue Seven Jewish Children.

The script accuses the entire population of Israel of mass murders which were never committed.

For her efforts, Churchill became an international celebrity. The Royal Court Theater produced her anti- Jewish agitprop. The Guardian featured it on its home page. When Jewish groups demanded that The Guardian remove the blood libel from its website, the paper refused. Instead, it left the anti-Semitic propaganda on its homepage, but in a gesture of openmindedness, hosted a debate about whether or not Seven Jewish Children is anti-Semitic.

From London, Seven Jewish Children went on tour in Europe and the US. In a bid to show how tolerant of dissent they are, Jewish communities in America hosted showings of the play, which portrays Jewish parents as monsters who train their children to become mass murderers.

Seven Jewish Children’s success was repeated by the Turkish anti-Semitic action film Valley of the Wolves- Palestine, which premiered on January 28 – International Holocaust Memorial Day. The hero of that film is a Turkish James Bond character who comes to Israel to avenge his brothers, who were killed by IDF forces on the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara last May.

No doubt owing to the success of Seven Jewish Children and Valley of the Wolves-Palestine and other such initiatives, anti-Semitic art and entertainment is a growth sector in Europe.

Last month Britain struck again. Channel 4 produced a new piece of anti-Semitic bile – a four-part prime-time miniseries called The Promise. It presents itself as an historical drama about Israel and the Palestinians, but its relationship with actual history begins and ends with the wardrobes. In what has become the meme of all European and international left-liberal salons, the only good Jews in the mini-series are the ones who died in the Holocaust. From the show’s perspective, every Jew who took up arms to liberate Israel from the British and defend it from the Arabs is a Nazi.

WHAT ALL this shows is that Netanyahu was wasting his time calling on world leaders to condemn the murder of the Fogel family. What does a condemnation mean? France and Britain condemned the massacre, along with the US. Does that exculpate the French and British for their embrace of anti-Semitism? Does it make them friends of the Jewish state? And say a British playwright sees the YouTubecensored photographs. No self-respecting British playwright will write a play called Three Jewish Children telling the story of how Palestinian parents do in fact teach their children to become mass murderers of Jews. And if a playwright were to write such a play, The Royal Court Theater wouldn’t produce it. The Guardian wouldn’t post it on its website. Liberal Jewish community centers in America wouldn’t show it, nor would university student organizations in Europe or America.

No, if someone wanted to use the photographs of Yoav’s and Elad’s mangled corpses and clenched fists as inspiration to write a play or feature film about the fact that the Palestinians have no national identity outside their quest to annihilate the Jewish state, he would find no mass market.

The headlines describing the attack make all this clear.

From the BBC to CNN the Fogels were not described as Israelis. They were a “settler family.” Their murderers were “alleged terrorists.”

As far as the opinion makers of Europe and much of America are concerned, the Yoavs and Hadases and Elads of Israel have no right to live if they live in “a settlement.”

So too, they believe that Palestinians have a right to murder Israelis who serve in the IDF and who believe that Jews should be able to live freely wherever we want because this land belongs to us.

Until these genteel Jew haters learn to think otherwise, Israel should neither seek nor care if they condemn this or any other act of Palestinian genocide. We shouldn’t care about them at all.

Armchair Barbarism
March 19, 2011

Melanie Phillips, The Spectator


Today the massacred Fogel family was buried in Jerusalem. And as anticipated, the moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media – a sickening form of armchair barbarism which is also in evidence, it has to be said, on the comment thread beneath my post below.

Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as ‘hard-line settlers’ or extremists. Given that three of the victims were children, one a baby of three months whose throat was cut, such a response is utterly degraded.

The New York Times blamed Israeli ‘defiance’ over renewed ‘settlement’ building in the wake of the massacre for throwing

already shaky peace efforts into a new tailspin.

So to the New York Times, it’s not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised ‘peace prospects’ — because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages — but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick

Both CNN and the BBC, meanwhile, along with Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian, gave the impression that this was not a terrorist attack but the actions of an ‘intruder’ — for all the world as if this was a burglary that got out of hand. CNN said:

Five members of an Israeli family were killed in the West Bank early Saturday morning in what the Israeli military is calling a ‘terror attack’…According to a military spokeswoman, an intruder entered the Israeli settlement of Itamar near the northern West Bank city of Nablus around 1 am, made his way into a family home and killed two parents and their three children.

The BBC similarly reported:

The family – including three children — were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported…

Honest Reporting finds the BBC treatment of this massacre, all but burying the details of the attack on the Fogel family beneath a story about those wicked settlements, the most shocking and callous of all this dreadful coverage.

For those who don’t appreciate the role played by the ‘moderate’ PA in glorifying terrorism and inciting the mass murder of Israelis, Palestinian Media Watch has assembled some recent examples here – including the award by Abbas of $2000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked and tried to kill Israeli soldiers two months ago.

(Graphic pictures of the bodies of the slain Fogel family are circulating on the net and on YouTube. The relatives of the massacre victims have made them publicly available in order to show the world the full horror of the Arab barbarism in Itamar. However, I have decided not to link to these pictures. The reported wishes of a distraught family cannot in my view justify what is inescapably a gratuitous invasion of the privacy and dignity of the dead. But read this, and weep.)

What is being deliberately ignored through this travesty of reporting is not just the human tragedy of this terrible massacre. It is the politically crucial fact that it was apparently carried out not by Hamas but by the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the terrorist wing of Fatah. Fatah is the party of Mahmoud Abbas, the Holocaust denier who is the allegedly ‘moderate’ Chairman of the PA – and who not surprisingly couldn’t even bring himself to express unequivocal horror at the atrocity.

This diabolical deed therefore gives the lie to all those who have been supporting, promoting and funding the PA as ‘moderates’ who deserve a state of their own. The fact is that America, Britain and the EU have been not only promoting this bunch of neo-Nazi fanatics and baby murderers. They have also been forcing their putative victim, Israel, to offer them its own throat to be cut, along with that of Jewish babies. And these craven governments in turn are being egged on by the bigots, useful idiots and worse of the British, European and — it has to be said loud and clear — Israeli ‘liberal’ intelligentsia.

Truly, this is beyond desolation.

See also Natural Disasters and Palestinian Barbarism

%d bloggers like this: