Has Dershowitz Lost The Plot?

 

Alan Dershowitz is apparently either unable, or unwilling, to talk straight when it comes to Obama‘s hypocrisy re Israel.  And it is truly a terrible thing to read Dershowitz’s pathetic rationalisations of the suicidal ‘compromises’ Israel is being pressured to make at the behest of the Obama administration.

 

Melanie Phillips says it best:

 

The American lawyer Alan Dershowitz is one of the most prolific, high-profile and indefatiguable defenders of Israel and the Jewish people against the tidal wave of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish feeling currently coursing through the west. So a piece by him in the Wall Street Journal giving expression to the rising anxiety being felt about Obama by American Jews naturally arouses great interest.

 

But just like the majority of American Jews, getting on for 80 per cent of whom voted for Obama, he is a Democrat supporter who is incapable of acknowledging the truth about this President. For most American Jews, the horror of even entertaining the hypothetical possibility that they might ever in a million years have to vote for a Republican is so great they simply cannot see what is staring them in the face — that this Democratic President is lethal for both Israel and the free world.

 

And in this article Dershowitz shows that he too is just as blind. Acknowledging the anxiety among some American Jews about Obama’s attitude to Israel, Dershowitz concludes uneasily that there isn’t really a problem here because all Obama is doing is putting pressure on Israel over the settlements, which most American Jews don’t support anyway.

 

But this is totally to miss the point. The pressure over the settlements per se is not the reason for the intense concern. It is instead, first and foremost, the fact that Obama is treating Israel as if it is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Obama thus inverts aggressor and victim, denying Israel’s six-decade long victimisation and airbrushing out Arab aggression.

 

The question remains: why has Obama chosen to pick a fight with Israel while soft-soaping Iran which is threatening it with genocide? The answer is obvious: Israel is to be used to buy off Iran just as Czechoslovakia was used at Munich.

 

Indeed, I would say this is worse even than that, since I suspect that Obama – coming as he does from a radical leftist milieu, with vicious Israel-haters amongst his closest friends — would be doing this to Israel even if Iran was not the problem that it is.

 

In any event, the double standard is egregious. Obama has torn up his previous understandings with Israel over the settlements while putting no pressure at all on the Palestinians, even though since they are the regional aggressor there can be no peace unless they end their aggression and certainly not until they accept Israel as a Jewish state, which they have said explicitly they will never do.

 

On this, Obama is totally silent. So too is Dershowitz. That’s some omission.

 

Next, Obama is pressuring Israel to set up a Palestine state – within two years this will exist, swaggers Rahm Emanuel. But everyone knows that as soon as Israel leaves the West Bank, Hamas – or even worse – will take over. The only reason the (also appalling) Abbas is still in Ramallah, enabling Obama to pretend there is a Palestinian interlocutor for peace, is because the Israelis are keeping Hamas at bay.

 

Yet Dershowitz writes: “There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel`s right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.”

 

 So what exactly does he think would happen if Israel came out of the West Bank and the Hamas rockets were down the road from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (literally: many in the west have absolutely no idea how tiny Israel is). It’s not a question of Israel’s ‘right to defend its children’.

 

If Obama has his way, Israel would not be able to defend its children or anyone else, because Obama would have removed its defences by putting its enemies in charge of them.

 

It is astounding that Dershowitz can’t see this. Then there was Obama’s appalling Cairo speech — which I wrote about here – in which he conspicuously refrained from committing himself to defending Zionism and the Jewish people from the attacks and incitement to genocide against them, but committed himself instead to defending their attackers against ‘negative stereotyping’.

 

On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Worse still, by falsely asserting that the Jewish aspiration for Israel derived from the Holocaust, Obama effectively denied that the Jewish people were in Israel as of right and thus endorsed the core element of the Arab and Muslim propaganda of war and extermination.

 

On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama drew a vile – and telling – equivalence between the Nazi extermination camps and the Palestinian ‘refugee’ camps. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama`s statement that the Palestinians ‘have suffered in pursuit of a homeland’ was grossly and historically untrue, and again denied Arab aggression. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.

 

Equally vilely, Obama equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the resistance against apartheid in South Africa. On all of this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Dershowitz also grossly underplays the terrible harm Obama is doing to the security not just of Israel but the world through his reckless appeasement of Iran.

 

In the last few weeks, this has actively undercut the Iranian democrats trying to oust their tyrannical regime, and has actually strengthened that regime. All the evidence suggests ever more strongly that Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.

 

 But even here, where he is clearly most concerned, Dershowitz scuttles under his comfort blanket – Dennis Ross, who was originally supposed to have been the US special envoy to Iran but was recently announced senior director of the National Security Council and special assistant to the President for the region. It is not at all clear whether this ambiguous development represents a promotion or demotion for Ross.

 

Either way, for Dershowitz to rest his optimism that Obama’s Iran policy will be all right on the night entirely upon the figure of Dennis Ross is pathetic. Ross, a Jew who played Mr. Nice to Robert Malley’s Mr. Nasty towards Israel in the Camp David debacle under President Clinton, is clearly being used by Obama as a human shield behind which he can bully Israel with impunity.

 

American Jews assume that his proximity to Obama means the President’s intentions towards Israel are benign. Dazzled by this vision of Ross as the guarantor of Obama’s good faith, they thus ignore altogether the terrible import of the actual words coming out of the President’s mouth.

 

The fact is that many American Jews are so ignorant of the history of the Jewish people, the centrality of Israel in its history and the legality and justice of its position that they probably saw nothing wrong in Obama saying that the Jewish aspiration for Israel came out of the Holocaust because they think this too.

 

Nor do they see the appalling double standard in the bullying of Israel over the settlements and what that tells us about Obama’s attitude towards Israel, because – as Dershowitz himself makes all too plain — they too think in much the same way, that the settlements are the principal obstacle to peace. Many if not most American Jews have a highly sentimentalised view of Israel. They never go there, are deeply ignorant of its history and current realities, and are infinitely more concerned with their own view of themselves as social liberals, a view reflected back at themselves through voting for a Democrat President.

 

 Whatever else he is, however, Dershowitz is certainly not ignorant. Which makes this lamentable article all the more revealing, and depressing.

When Pictures Speak Louder Than Words

This post is dedicated to those people who constantly insist that Israel is on a ‘land grab’ in the Middle East. The claim would be funny – if millions didn’t believe it.

Let’s make this really simple:

 

Israel And The Arab Nations
Israel And The Arab Nations

 

See that tiny blue sliver?

That’s Israel.

Hardly been on a ‘land grab’ now, has it…?

 

Let’s get more specific:

Israel And Egypt - Israel is in BLUE
Israel And Egypt - Israel is in BLUE

Egypt also has a border with Gaza. And prior to 1967, when Egypt occupied Gaza, it stuck the Palestinian Arabs in camps and then left them there to rot and garner world sympathy. Guess what? The world did not say a damn word. The Palestinians did not protest and they sure as hell didn’t aim deadly missiles into Egypt.  There was no international condemnation of Egypt behaving like ‘Nazis’, despite their abuse of the Palestinians.

 

Israel And Saudi Arabia
Israel And Saudi Arabia

 

Saudi Arabia is a known supporter and funder of Islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia can always be heard lambasting Israel for its ‘expansionist’ desires. Obscene, is it not…? Look at their comparative sizes again.

 

Now let’s take a good look at the relative sizes of Israel and America. Obama is so obsessed with ordering Israel to give up land – easy for him to demand that, isn’t it? After all, what does he know about living in a country so small that it’s a miracle it’s managed to survive this long surrounded by hostile states dedicated to its destruction?

Israel And America
Israel And America

 

And especially for my fellow Brits:

 

Israel (blue) And Britain (yellow)
Israel (blue) And Britain (yellow)

 

 

And finally, just to really put it in perspective, here is Israel, compared with Lake Michigan:

 

Israel (blue) And Lake Michigan (yellow)
Israel (blue) And Lake Michigan (yellow)

 

So next time you hear someone trotting out the weary old Arab propaganda about Israel being on a ‘land grab’, you’ll know their claims are utter fiction. By looking at these maps, you’ll perhaps now also realise that if Obama and the Arab and Muslim worlds get their way, you won’t be able to see Israel on any map for that much longer.

Obama – Selling Out Israel

Both Jews and non Jews alike are expressing alarm over Obama’s willingness to sacrifice Israel in order to placate the Arab world.

Atlas Shrugs has been monitoring this situation closely; here is a recent post which spells out precisely what is going on:

Obama committed to Expelling Jews from Jewish Homeland

The increasingly creepy President’s latest act of anti-semitism. From Israel Today:

‘Obama committed to ejecting Jews from Judea-Samaria,’ says Abbas

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Abbas spoke to the press after briefing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to the White House late last week, during which Obama apparently agreed with his guest that existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria must not even be allowed to experience “natural growth.”

“When the American administration talks about Israel’s duty to stop the settlements – including natural growth – it is a very important step,” noted Abbas.

Following their meeting last Thursday, Obama said that he also told Abbas to make a bit more of an effort to halt what he described as isolated and sporadic anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian schools, mosques and media. Documentation by Israeli and international watchdog groups shows that the incitement is far from isolated or sporadic.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials cited by Ha’aretz decried the Obama Administration’s stiff demands that no more houses be built for Jews beyond the pre-1967 borders.

They noted that under former President George W. Bush, Israel reached understandings that the natural growth of existing towns would not subject to Israel’s commitments to halt settlement activity (commitments many Israelis see as null and void anyway since the Palestinians have failed to honor their reciprocal obligations).

But one official said those understandings are now “worth nothing,” and that the US is taking an unfair position by completely siding with Palestinian demands that go far beyond the original peace agreements.

Other officials attributed Obama’s hard line positions against Israel to his efforts to reconcile with the Arab and Muslim worlds, which will be the focus of a much anticipated speech he will give in Cairo this Thursday.

Israel to U.S.: ‘Stop favoring Palestinians’

UPDATE: The Lid compares Obama to Pharaoh: “This week the President of the United States declared that the Jews living in the West Bank cannot have children, and if they do those kids cannot live with their parents. Oh, that’s not what he said, but the result is the same. What he said is that there cannot be natural growth in the West Bank settlements:”

‘Obama’s decrees are like Pharaoh’s’

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

“The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river,” Science Minister and Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, referring to US President Barack Obama’s demand to freeze all settlement activity, even that ensuing from natural growth.

Speaking ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, mathematician Herschkowitz furthered his point with a simple equation. “If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them – to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively,” he affirmed.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai said, “The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don’t want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we’re facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they’re demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand.”

Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein chose a positive perspective on the dispute threatening an Israeli-American rift.

“The recent days prove what luck we have that it is [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem,” he said. “Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.”

“We aren’t headed for a confrontation with the White House, but rather for understandings, and Netanyahu’s visit there proved it. President Obama is a friend of Israel, and I’m sure we can resolve the disagreements,” Edelstein added.

Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog of the Labor party stressed the importance in preventing a head-on collision with Obama.

“The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s upcoming trip to Washington proves it,” Herzog said.

Facts That The World Ignores

There is so much nonsense in the media about Israel. Much of it revolves around the absurd idea that Jews just rocked up to the Middle East in 1948, kicked out the ‘native palestinians’, and declared a Jewish nation in a part of the  world that they had no link to and no rights to.

Of course, the reality is far, far different. The very term ‘Palestinian’ always referred to the Palestinian Jews that had already been living there for the past 3500 years – continuously.

And the ‘palestinians’ as we know them today, are the descendants of Arabs. There is no ancient ‘palestinian’ people that have been stripped of their ‘home’. On the contrary, they are Arabs whose parents and grandparents moved to the region only after the Jews irrigated the land, drained the swamps, and began transforming the land into a flourishing and viable place to live. Not to mention creating numerous work opportunities.

These are verifiable facts. Yet try and present them and I guarantee from personal experience, you will stand accused of ‘spreading zionist propaganda’. It seems that offering objective historical fact is not acceptable when it supports Israel’s right to exist, and the Jews’ right to live in peace, in safety, in Israel.

Do keep on reiterating these facts. And here are some more, most eloquently put, courtesy of Think Israel:

;What is ironic is that Israel belongs exclusively to the Jews by International Law.  So why do the Arabs insist the land is theirs? Because the Jews have been so crazy for peace, they have been willing to share, to give up pieces of their tiny country, for a piece of paper.

The Arabs created a phony people in 1964, called the “Palestinians” and blanketed the world with the mantra that they were the Palestinians and Palestine was theirs.

There has not ever been a country or a state called Palestine. There have been Palestinians. During the British Mandate from 1922 to 1948 the Jews called where they lived Palestine. They played music in the Palestine Philharmonic. They read the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post.) As the Palestine Brigade, they fought in the British Army in World War 2. The Arabs also fought hard – for Hitler

(Eliezar Edwards, December, 2008.


************************************************************************************

A Palestinian State? You want that? OK. BUT not in Israel. No way. Not now. Not ever. Put this Arab state in Dubai or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Libya or Syria. Make it big. Fill it with the Po’ Arab “refugees”. And with the Arabs of Gaza and Samaria and Judea (AKA West Bank). And treasonous Arabs who have Israeli citizenship. Build a big fence around it. Let them learn to develop the infrastructure of a state. Or let them destroy themselves, if that’s what they prefer. If they ever become civilized, then it’s time to consider letting them join the human race. (Eliezar Edwards, August, 2008)

Before You Blame Israel

This great post first appeared courtesy of my fellow blogger Marc Alan Di Martino. Do check out his blog by clicking here!


Before You Blame Israel

An ax-wielding Palestinian terrorist murdered a thirteen year old Israeli boy and fractured the skull of a seven year old yesterday in the West Bank.

What’s more, he escaped the clutches of those all-powerful Israelis and hightailed it back to his village. At least two known terrorist groups jumped up to claim responsibility for this Samir Kuntar-like atrocity, and there can be little doubt that the assassin is being celebrated across a wide swathe of the Arab world.

The Western media will be close behind, trying in every conceivable way to make it look like the two boys had it coming. They will say they were living on ‘stolen land’. Or, at least, that the new Israeli government “provoked” the violence with its rampant xenophobia and polarizing stance on peace. And this in less than two days. As always, those Israelis had it coming.

Driven to the brink of insanity, there is often little choice but murder in order to make one’s voice heard above the din of Israeli drones. Logical, no?

But before you blame Israel for the violence of others against it, consider:

“To hold the Jews responsible for the aggression against them…is to disfigure political reality beyond recognition. Even if the Jews were the most rotten and misguided people on earth, they do not number 280 million in nationality (let alone one billion in religious affinity); they have not organized their politics around the destruction of twenty-one Arab countries, or trained a generation of suicide bombers to achieve that goal; they have not used the United Nations as a medium for spreading a genocidal ideology around the globe, or their synagogues to preach “death to the Arabs!” Jews did not bomb America in the name of the Torah, or foment anti-Muslim sentiment throughout Europe.”

This paragraph is from an essay entitled “On Ignoring Anti-Semitism” by Ruth Wisse. It was published in Commentary in 2002, the year of the so-called “Jenin massacre,” for which the world media outdid each other trying to prove that the Jews were as bad–no, worse–than the Nazis.

Well, there never had been a massacre at Jenin, just around twenty Palestinian civilians killed in door-to-door combat–not counting an equal number of IDF soldiers and, of course, the terrorists themselves–but the defamation stuck like honey, and to slip “Nazi” into any throwaway criticism of Israeli self-defense has become a detestable fashion in recent years.


The Myth Of The ‘Occupied Territories’

If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become the ‘truth’ in as much as being accepted as fact by the majority of the population?

Certainly, the Nazis believed in this premise and proved it can happen. Now, several decades later, it’s happening again. I refer specifically to the myth of the ‘occupied territories’. People use this phrase confidently when condemning Israel – either not knowing or not caring that they are talking rubbish.

Here’s an excellent piece which bursts this myth. Please read it and then share it with others.


The Myth of “Occupied” Territories
– Boris Shusteff

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term “occupied territories.” The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews.

The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement.

This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed to assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain.

By doing so the League of Nations “recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and established “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Article 6 of the Mandate “encouraged … close settlement by Jews on the land,” including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).

There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine.

As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, was not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to “postpone or withhold application of [this] provision.”

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate).

Article 80 stated that “nothing … shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever … of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

“In the first place the recommendations of the General Asembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed… . The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights.”

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine.

However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution.

By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael – they remained intact.

Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the “occupied” territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations.

Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why from Iraq the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body, while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.

On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs’ position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-‘Arabi, gave an explanation of this “paradox.” She was asked, “What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?”

She answered,

“I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter.”

To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-‘Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following:

“…There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation… . The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter… . This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions. …None of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael.

Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of international law FOR THE JEWS IT IS NOT AN OCCUPIED LAND.

This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha.

This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, “What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?” Baker replied, “They’re clearly disputed territories. That’s what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories.”

All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on “occupied” territories. If one wants, one may call them “disputed” territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of international law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.

And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of exactly the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well. It is time to stop labeling them “occupied”.

‘They Were Just Going To Dance!’ OR Thumbs Down To The Bloomsbury Bigots

We’re back in Dhimmiland UK – where Bloomsbury Theatre has just cancelled the Israeli Yom Ha’atzmaut gala scheduled to take place there.

Yom Ha’atzmaut, for those unfamilar with the term, is the Israeli Independence Day. Yep – in May, it will be Israel’s 61st birthday! And the Zionist Federation (ZF) had organised a fun filled gala for both Jews and non Jews alike.

So why have the Bloomsbury Bigots reneged at such short notice…?

Answer: because as part of the gala, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) dance troupe was set to perform. That’s right. The 18 yr old kids who make up the IDF, or ‘evil zionist killers’, as the BBC and Guardian newspaper routinely portray them, enjoy dancing in their spare time.

But the Bloomsbury Theatre received ‘some protests’, it seems.  As a result, and at the 11th hour, they informed the ZF that they were cancelling the entire gala.

And when the ZF tried to compromise by even offering to drop the dance troupe, well, the Bloomsbury Bigots didn’t want to know. The answer was still A Firm No.

So this is where we are in Dhimmiland UK. It’s fine for terrorist group Hamas to be received as honoured guests at the House Of Commons – but a group of 18 and 19 year old Israelis, who happen to also serve two years in the army – are banned from a theatre, along with all the other Israelis who were due to perform.

‘The ZF has bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns raised. If they are now saying they won’t hold the event, this is an outrageous decision and they should be ashamed of themselves,’ said Lee Scott, Ilford North MP.The Independence Day celebrations are peaceful, the dance troupe has always been part of the show and I can’t see there’s any ay that a dance group can be interpreted as anything but peaceful. They were just going to dance!’

Happily, it’ll take more than the pitiful Bloomsbury Bigots to rain on this parade. An alternative venue in North London has been found. And ZF chairman Andrew Balcombe  says:

‘Because of the recent publicity, we have been indundated with calls of support and ticket requests. The audience from the Jewish, and general, communities will be coming together to celebrate Israel’s 61st birthday and see the rich cultural diversity that is Israel – the only democracy in the Middle East.’

If any fellow Brits are reading this, please do feel free to email or write to the Bloomsbury Theatre to express your concern over this shameful episode.

Calling All Jews! Do Read This:

This article is courtesy of Sultan Knish: click HERE to visit his site.


The Lessons Of The Holocaust For The Obama Generation



Yom HaShoah has come and gone again. A day for looking back at what has happened and a day for looking away from what will happen.

In Skokie, millions of dollars have been spent to build a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology that will be used to finish that piece of history that Ahmadinejad claims never took place.

It is of course an easy thing to build a memorial. You hire the architect, raise the money, buy the land and then cut the ribbon. It is a much harder thing to do something about the need for those memorials in the first place. That is what learning the lessons of the Holocaust is about. Yet instead of learning the lessons, the American Jewish community has thrown itself into memorializing a horror that they could have helped prevent, if they had shown the guts to stand up to the icon of liberalism, FDR.

But it is of course easier to buy another memorial. Easier than looking into your hearts and asking yourselves whether two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community is still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House… when the lives of millions of Jews are on the line.

The reassurances from American Jewish leaders that Obama means well, that he will not sell out Israel and that he cares should sound familiar. The American Jewish leaders of the 30’s and 40’s echoed the same sentiments. Even as FDR’s Asst Secretary of State was busy pressuring Costa Rica not to take in Jewish refugees, even as the St. Louis was turned back and its passengers were sent to the gas chambers, even as every effort made to aid or save Jews from the Holocaust was frustrated and shut down with the active complicity of the liberal American Jewish leadership who were loyal to FDR uber alles.

The same people who refused to join the 100 Rabbis on the march to the White House, who denounced the Emergency Committee for the Rescue of European Jewry and who let Jewish refugees in the ghetto of Harbin starve to death rather than undermine FDR in any way– went on to light candles and issue their hypocritical sanctimonious statements of mourning for the dead. The dead that their decision to choose liberalism over the blood of their brothers helped to kill.

When FDR finally died on the throne, the same people would go on to lionize Harry Truman as a great friend of the Jews. Never mind that the man refused to even allow any Jewish person inside his house, including his own biographer. The next generation of American Jewish leaders would do the same for President after President leading up to Clinton, who armed and built up a terrorist state inside Israel’s borders. And naturally Obama, the newest liberal icon in the White House. Our new “best friend”.

More candles have been lit. More memorials have been built. But the lessons of the Holocaust continue to go unlearned.

The Holocaust was not a unique event in Jewish history. It was only unique as far as the technology used by the Nazis gave their massacres and planned genocide a scope and range that was mostly unprecedented. Mostly, but not completely. Since Rome worked to ethnically cleanse Israel, transforming it into Palestine with the help of Arab mercenaries, the cycle of atrocities has repeated itself over and over again. Generation after generation. Culture after culture. Nation after nation. The Holocaust was simply the biggest, best planned and grandest massacre of Jews to this day. It was not a break with Jewish history, it was a continuation of Jewish life in exile.

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the details of how it happened don’t really matter. Had Hitler not come to power, had Germany not turned National Socialist, the Holocaust would have happened anyway. Stalin had one planned too before his death. Had it not been Hitler or Stalin, it would have been someone else. It still might be.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, as most liberals would like you to believe. It happened for the same overriding reason that any person or group of people is murdered. Because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it.

There have been two Jewish responses to the Holocaust, on the one hand promoting tolerance and assimilation and on the other hand the State of Israel. Tolerance has done nothing to prevent the hatred and murder of Jews. In many cases it has actually served to promote it. Assimilation is little more than a secularist Masada, a proclamation of “we’ll destroy ourselves, before you can destroy us.” The State of Israel stands as the only meaningful response to the Holocaust.

Rather than building stone memorials and going back to business as usual, the State of Israel is not only a living future for the Jewish people, it is a response to the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because it could happen to a people who couldn’t defend themselves. The State of Israel with its armies and borders was the best physical defense against it happening again.

Today the two responses to the Holocaust are battling out to the death, Tolerance and Assimilation vs the State of Israel. And the State of Israel is getting the worst of it. The teachers of tolerance blame Israel for the failure of their own ideology, manifest in the rising hatred of Jews around the world. If Israel wouldn’t exist, somehow Jews wouldn’t be hated, their thesis goes. As if Anti-semitism had been discovered lying around in a dustbin sometime after 1948.

But it is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel. The left has pushed Israel to the wall, because it represents the inversion of their ideology, it represents the reality that the best hope of the persecuted is not in multiculturalism or in tolerance classes, but in taking responsibility for their own safety and survival. And now a new Pharaoh of Liberalism has taken the throne in the White House.

Obama’s reign represents a chance for American Jews to redeem their inaction during the Holocaust or be damned for choosing liberalism and a second Holocaust.