Tag Archives: Israel

A Critical Analysis of Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011Speech to the United Nations

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Part I. Netanyahu’s Self-Incrimination

Near the outset of his speech, PM Netanyahu emphasized that, for the sake of peace, “Israel did more than just make sweeping offers [to her adversaries]. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn’t calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and made it stronger.”

This factual statement of Netanyahu unwittingly reveals that Israel’s political leaders are ignorant concerning the implacable nature of Islam and are therefore incapable of making strategic decisions conducive to the security of their country.

Netanyahu goes on to say: “Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated.” To this I ask, “What morally responsible and self-respecting government would allow Israel’s enemies to fire so many rockets against Israel’s cities without retaliating after only a few rockets were fired?”

Oblivious of his incriminating Israel’s government, Mr. Netanyahu went on to say that leaving Gaza did not stop Muslims from attacking Israel. Now ponder his further admissions regarding Gaza:

We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory [of land for peace] says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements. And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of — out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even — we even moved loved ones from their graves.

What a monumental display of self-incrimination! This forced expulsion of Jews from their homes was an unspeakable crime. Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu is too callous or self-righteous to see this uprooting of innocent men, women, and children from their homes and bulldozing their synagogues as a crime. His own father Benzion Netanyahu denounced the projected expulsion as a crime! I would only add it was a desecration of God’s Name.

Nor is this all. Listening to PM Netanyahu’s speech to the UN, the intelligent observer will ask: “Didn’t it occur to you that expelling the Jews from Gaza had grave military consequences, namely, that all of Gaza would become a launching pad for rocket attacks against your country?” Were you deaf to the warnings of your military and intelligence experts?”

Indeed, Israel’s highest defense and intelligence officials, Moshe Ya’alon (IDF Chief of Staff), Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze’evi-Farkash (head of IDF Intelligence), and Avi Dichter (Director of the Shin Bet—General Security Service), all warned against the Gaza withdrawal.

On January 5, 2005, in testimony before the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, Dichter described the threats inherent in pulling the IDF from the Gaza Strip: “In a situation where Israel is not in control of the Philadelphi corridor [which separates Gaza from the Sinai Peninsula], terrorists arriving from Lebanon are liable to infiltrate through it into the Gaza Strip and there is the distinct possibility that in a short while the Gaza Strip will turn into south Lebanon.” Dichter also cautioned that the current “trickle” of arms smuggling through the corridor is liable to turn into a “river.”

On September 28, 2005, Farkash warned that Al-Qaida members are in the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip after infiltrating while the border with Egypt was opened two weeks ago.

Ya’alon warned, in interview published in Ha’aretz on June 3, 2005, that disengagement will lead to a renewal of the terrorist war in the West Bank.

On July 23, 2005, Maj. Gen, Yaacov Amidror (who served as commander of Israel’s School of National Security until 2002) warned: “There is no military advantage to leaving Gaza. You lose control on the ground, the ability to conduct intelligence operations and to stage ground efforts into Gaza City and Khan Yunis. You let Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a safe haven to launch terrorist actions from and in which to grow their terror apparatus.”

Despite all this, Netanyahu had the audacity to remind the UN how the entire world applauded Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as “an act of great statesmanship … bold act of peace.” “But ladies and gentlemen,” he added, “we didn’t get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day—in one day.”

That’s right, Mr. Netanyahu, but I ask you: On what empirical grounds, on what historical grounds, on what logical grounds, on what psychological grounds, on what theological grounds, had you any reason to expect peace after this display of defeatism and this unconscionable crime against the Jews of Gaza?

(To be continued)

The Real Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

by Raymond Ibrahim

In a globalized world where debate and diplomacy predominate, there is one sure way to discern the sincerity of any particular government: see how it behaves at home, where it is in power; see especially how it treats its minorities.

Consider the government of Iran. Gearing up for the Durban III Conference, supposedly against racism, scheduled to take place in New York City this week, Tehran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no doubt plan on complaining to the international community about Israel as in former conferences—portraying the Jewish state as “the most cruel and repressive racist regime,” a “barbaric” government that engages in “inhuman policies” against the Palestinians.

Yet what sort of government runs Iran—that is, how do Ahmadinejad and the mullahs behave on their own turf, where they are in control? One need only look to Iran’s daily domestic affairs to get a clear idea of what “barbaric,” “cruel,” and “inhuman policies” are truly like.

In the last few days alone, officials launched a Bible burning campaign, confiscating and destroying some 7,000 Bibles, many publicly burned, even as the mainstream media, which provided round-the-clock coverage on Terry Jones—one nonofficial American who destroyed one Koran—ignores the mass Bible bonfires held by a government. Likening its tiny Christian minority to the “Taliban and parasites,” the regime is also in the process of “cracking down” on Christians, who make up less than 1% of the entire population.

The West’s endless supply of apologists—the sort who think it makes them appear “sophisticated” and “enlightened” to be tolerant of anything, so long as it doesn’t directly affect them—will likely argue that the Bible is just a book. As for “cracking down” on Christians, “Who knows,” these dedicated relativists will probably argue, “maybe Iran’s beleaguered Christian minority is just as bad as the Taliban?”

Here, then, is an indefensible example of Iran’s blatant savagery—proof that it should not cast stones until it joins the concert of civilized nations. According to Compass Direct News:

A pastor in Iran found guilty of leaving Islam awaits the outcome of a judicial investigation into his spiritual background to see if he will be executed or, if possible, forced to become a Muslim… The court-ordered investigation will take place sometime this fall to determine whether Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, 34, was a Muslim as a teenager before he became a Christian at 19.

Last year the pastor was sentenced by a regional court to death by hanging for “convert[ing] to Christianity” and “encourag[ing] other Muslims to convert to Christianity.” After his lawyer argued that he “had never actually been a Muslim and therefore could not be found guilty of abandoning the religion,” the court, while continuing to uphold the death penalty, ordered an “investigation.” Yet the burden of proof is on the victim: he must “prove that from puberty (15 years) to 19 he was not Muslim”—by getting acquaintances, relatives, local elders, and Muslims to vouch for him.

However, “if it can be proved that he was a practicing Muslim as an adult and [he] has not repented [i.e. returned to Islam], the execution will be carried out.” Moreover, “even if the investigation releases him from the charge of apostasy, it is likely the charge of evangelizing Muslims will still carry a lengthy prison sentence, sources said.”

In other words, while imprisoning and executing people simply because they want to live according to their conscience—a most basic human right—Iran complains to the world that Israel is “barbaric,” “cruel,” and “inhuman.”

But there is no contradiction; both slandering Israel and murdering Christians are perfectly consistent. In each case, Iran seeks the destruction of the “other”—whether Christian or Jew. At home in Iran, where it is in power, it destroys its Christian minority with impunity, in front of the whole world; on the international stage, where it is currently weak, it seeks to destroy Israel by exploiting the West’s lofty language and acting “outraged.”

Worst of all, this affair does not merely expose Iran’s hypocrisy; it exposes the United Nation’s utopist foolishness. By allowing heads of the most notorious human rights abusing states, such as Iran and genocidal Sudan, to attend conferences that supposedly deal with “racism” and “human rights,” the UN actually exposes itself as a facilitator of human rights abuses.

Originally published by Hudson New York on September 21, 2011.

Raymond Ibrahim, a widely published Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Legal Implications of Palestinian Statehood

By David Parsons

Israeli officials from the Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s bureau have outlined in recent weeks their concerns over the legal and diplomatic implications of the Palestinian Authority’s planned unilateral moves at the United Nations Opening Assembly in September.

At its Algiers summit in 1988, the PLO already issued a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood without specifying its borders, a move that was recognized by more than 100 nations from the Soviet and Non-Aligned blocs.

When the UN gathers for its annual Opening Assembly in New York this month, the PA is now determined to seek a UN vote to recognize a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as its capital. The PA will also demand that this state be accepted as a full UN member. In addition, the PA may press for a UN condemnation of Israeli “settlements” in the disputed territories and a declaration that they are illegal under international law.

Among the legal and diplomatic options available to the PA are:

a) A demand for recognition and admittance as a member state in the United Nations. Membership first requires the recommendation of the UN Security Council before the General Assembly may vote to admit a new member. The PA claims it has the necessary nine votes in the Security Council to pass such a resolution, but it could still be blocked by a veto from a permanent member state, such as the US.

b) A UN General Assembly resolution recognizing Palestine as a “non-member” state along the pre-1967 lines and/or declaring Israeli settlements illegal. Such a decision is non-binding, but it would bolster the legitimacy of Palestinian territorial claims against Israel, and allow the Palestinians to become full members of numerous UN forums, among other effects. This is considered the most likely outcome of the looming diplomatic showdown.

c) A UN General Assembly referral to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for an advisory opinion regarding Palestinian rights and claims to statehood and/or the legality of Israeli settlements. Again, such an opinion would be non-binding, but it would further bolster the legitimacy of Palestinian territorial claims against Israel.

Israeli officials contend that any such measures would be blatant violations of all the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, while also contravening UN Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), among other UN decisions.

Thus, Israel opposes these unilateral actions for the following reasons:

1. UN Security Council resolution 242 (1967) called upon Israel and the Arab parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate directly in order to achieve “secure and recognized boundaries.” This resolution provided a suggested negotiating framework for resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict and has been reaffirmed in numerous UN decisions ever since. Israel argues that the Palestinians are now refusing to engage in any such negotiations and must not be rewarded for obstructing the peace process.

2. The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the status of the territory and determine the “1967 borders” as its recognized borders, would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending a final peace accord. In that interim agreement, the parties undertook to negotiate the issue of borders and not to act unilaterally to change the status of the territories pending a permanent agreement.

3. The Palestinians entered into the various “Oslo Accords” with full knowledge and consent that Israel’s settlements existed in those areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on Israel’s settlement activity in those areas, which the Palestinians agreed would continue to be under Israel’s jurisdiction and control pending the outcome of the final status negotiations.

4. The Oslo agreements signed by Israel and the PLO were all witnessed by the United Nations together with the European Union, the Russian Federation, the United States, Egypt and Norway. These witnesses must demand that the Palestinians fully honor their signed agreements or risk undermining their own integrity as reliable intermediaries.

5. The pre-1967 lines never constituted a border. The 1949 armistice agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors established only the armistice demarcation lines where the respective armies stood when the conflict ended in 1948, and expressly stated that these lines did not constitute an international border.

David Parsons is senior producer of FrontPage, a media program of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem.

President Obama – No, He Can’t!

By Yoram Ettinger
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082463,00.html, June 15, 2011

President Obama pressures Israel to adopt his initiative, which is based on the 1949 cease fire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and land swaps. He implies that Israeli rejection of his initiative would undermine US-Israel relations, while advancing Palestinian maneuvers at the UN.

However, Obama lacks the domestic backing to effectively pressure Israel, which has recently gained in bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill and among constituents, while Obama lost the “Bin Laden Bounce” and is struggling with a less-than-50% approval rating.

Obama’s power constraints are derivatives of the Federalist system, which is based on limited government with a complete separation of powers and checks and balances between Congress and the White House, Congressional “Power of the Purse” and the centrality of the constituent in a political system of bi-annual elections. Therefore, legislators are more loyal to – and fearful of – their constituents than to their party or to the president.  Moreover, the loyalty to constituents constitutes a prerequisite for re-election.

Obama’s constraints in pressuring the Jewish State emanate from the unique attitude of Americans – as early as the 1620 landing of the Mayflower, as well as the Founding Fathers – to the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel.  The solid and sustained support enjoyed by Israel in the USA derives its vitality from the American people and from their representatives on Capitol Hill and in the legislatures of the 50 states more than from the president.  While the president plays a major role in shaping US-Israel relations, constituents and legislators laid the foundations for this relationship and they continuously codetermine its direction, tone and substance.  They can also initiate, suspend, terminate and amend policies, direct presidents and overhaul presidential policies.

The results of the November 2010 Congressional elections revealed that Obama’s policies had lost the support of most constituents.

According to a May 26, 2011 poll by CNN – which is usually critical of Israel – most Americans do not share Obama’s attitude towards Israel.  82% consider Israel an ally and a friend, compared with 72% in 2001.  67% support Israel, while only 16% support the Palestinians, compared with 60%:17% in 2009.  In fact, the Palestinians (16%) are as unpopular as are Iran (15%) and North Korea (17%).

These CNN findings exceed the February, 2011 Gallup poll (68% considered Israel an ally), the April 2011 Rasmussen Report (most Americans opposed foreign aid to Arab countries but supported foreign aid to Israel) and the April 2010 Quinnipiac Polling Institute (66% expected Obama to improve treatment of Israel).

But, the “Poll of Polls” is conducted daily in Congress – a coequal branch of government – where hard-core support of the Jewish State has been bi-partisan, robust and steady.  Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid and Minority Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer publicly criticized (fellow-Democrat) President Obama’s focus on the 1967 ceasefire lines. Other key Democrats – whose cooperation is critical to Obama’s reelection campaign – have clarified that they expect him to veto any anti-Israel UN resolution.  Just like their constituents – most Democrats value Israel as a unique ally, whose alliance with the US is based on shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage this unique American support, defying pressure and solidifying Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of an unpredictably violent Middle East, where concessions breed radicalism, terrorism and war?  Or, will he succumb to the psychological warfare launched by the White House?

<em>Yoram Ettinger is former Israeli Ambassador to the United State and author of the Ettinger Report.</em>

What’s Lacking in Israeli Politicians and Why?

Paul Eidelberg

Year after year opinion polls indicate that 80-90 percent of the public in Israel regards the Knesset, hence Israeli politicians, as “corrupt.” What is primarily meant by “corrupt” is that Knesset Members are primarily animated by personal and narrow partisan interests rather than the public interest or the common good. David Ben-Gurion said as much in his Personal Memoirs where he deplored the lack of constituency elections in Israel, where Members of the Knesset are not individually accountable to the voters. Just think of the current break-up of the Labor Party. Who does Labor’s erstwhile chairman Ehud Barak now represent by forming the new Independent Party? A cute piece of self-aggrandizement! What a mockery of Proportional Representation, Israel’s inept mode of electing MKs.

But even a well-designed mode of election such as preferential voting, which would mitigate corruption, is not a substitute for virtue. And that is primarily what is most lacking in Israel—and of course elsewhere—namely, the lack of virtue in politicians. Remember when 29 MKs hopped over to rival parties before the 1999 elections?

If the Knesset is a virtual cesspool, as many citizens think, what is the cause of this despicable state of affairs? Do MKs succumb to self-aggrandizement only upon becoming members of Israel’s parliament? Haven’t they been habituated to good behavior in their childhood and subsequently by their education in the public schools and colleges of their country?

Ponder this: Plato’s Republic is first and foremost a book on education, perhaps the greatest ever written. The purpose of education is to cultivate good character, above all the cardinal virtues of moderation, justice, courage, and wisdom. Leaving aside Israel’s religious academies, do the public schools and colleges in Israel cultivate the moral as well as the intellectual virtue?.

It was not only the Lubavitcher Rebbe that warned religious youth not to study the social sciences and humanities in the colleges and universities of America, since these academic disciplines are permeated by moral relativism, a doctrine ensconced in Israeli universities. The late professor Allan Bloom exposed this pernicious doctrine in his book The Closing of the American Mind.

This is not merely an academic issue. Relativism erodes national identity and wholehearted dedication to a nation’s cause. This makes relativism a public issue which can’t be obscured by the mantra of “academic freedom.” Given this morally neutral doctrine, there are no rational grounds for preferring a regime of liberty to one of tyranny. In fact, a publication of the American Council of Learned Societies entitled Speaking for the Humanities maintains that democracy cannot be justified as a system of government inherently superior to totalitarianism; it is simply an “ideological commitment” that the West has chosen to make.

We need to emphasize the fact that universities more or less depend on governmental support, hence on the taxes of citizens. Academics have no right to use their classrooms as platforms for propaganda­—the pedagogy of Arab academics. They have no right to subvert the primary purpose of a university, which is to foster rational discussion and civilized debate in the pursuit of truth. Allow me to repeat part of a previous report of mine on Caroline Glick’s experience at Tel Aviv University.

Ms. Glick addressed some 150 political science students at TA University where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?”

Now ponder this exchange between Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”

Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”

Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”

Glick: “Did you learn that in Russia?”

Student: “No, here.”

Glick: “Here at Tel Aviv University?”

Student: “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal—i.e. secular—Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications. The deadly consequences are clear: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, whereas 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” Ms. Glick concludes: “Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?”

But this lack of a strong sense of national identity clearly underlies the government’s long-running policy of “territory for peace” and its ignominious desire to negotiate with Arab terrorists who have murdered and maimed some ten thousand Jews. What does this tell us about the leaders of this government? Simply this: they lack virtue.

Alas, I am beginning to feel almost like Nietzsche did back in the 1870s, when he recommended that most universities in Germany be closed down. Perhaps some of their multicultural counterparts in Israel and America should be transformed into domiciles for the homeless?

Relativism: From Israel to Einstein

By Paul Eidelberg

One can only wonder how a Jewish state, surrounded by hostile Arab-Islamic regimes, can survive when the educators of its political and military elites do not believe in the absolute justice of Israel’s cause. Professor Harkabi, who once served as head of the Israel Army Staff and Command College, concludes Arab Attitudes to Israel with this demoralizing remark: “The study of the [Arab-Israel] conflict reveals the relativity of the attitudes of the parties.” Influenced by such relativism, former General Ehud Barak, during his campaign for Israel’s premiership, was quoted as saying (in the United States) that had he been born an Arab, he would have been a terrorist!

Raised and educated in this decadent atmosphere, Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy Asa Kasher, under the authority of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and with the acquiescence of then Chief of Staff Barak, erased the words “Judaism” and “Zionism” as well as “Eretz Israel” from the Soldiers Code of Ethics! Who but minds afflicted by demophrenia would want to transform the Jewish state into a multicultural “state of its citizens”?

Israel is not multicultural America, the most powerful nation on earth. There relativism can permeate every level of education without immediately endangering that democracy’s existence—especially with benign Canada and feeble Mexico on its borders. But minuscule Israel, with Arab-Islamic dictatorships as neighbors, can hardly afford a diet of moral relativism. Yet this has been the fare of countless Israeli students.

Thus, in his book The Middle East, Israeli political scientist Yair Evron teaches: “Only by avoiding questions of right and wrong and also by limiting oneself to an analysis of patterns of behavior and strategies in conflict, can we approach this complex [Arab-Israel] conflict not in any emotional or apologetic way but scientifically and analytically.” We see here a tension between the apparent needs of “science” and the needs of society. To persevere in the Arab-Israel conflict, the people of Israel require steadfast belief in the justice of Israel’s cause. But for academics to preserve their “scientific,” i.e., academic credentials, they must adopt a morally neutral attitude toward that conflict. But wait! Evron’s book was published in 1973. To appreciate the pernicious impact of his relativism, come with me to the year 2003, and let us see what has happened to students attending Israeli universities.

Caroline B. Glick, an editor and gifted writer of The Jerusalem Post</em., addressed some 150 political science students at Tel Aviv University, where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?” Now ponder this exchange between Ms. Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”
Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”
Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”
Glick: “Did you learn that in Russia?”
Student: “No, here.”
Glick: “Here at Tel Aviv University?”
Student: “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications. The deadly consequences are clear: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” Ms. Glick concludes: “Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?”

One might think that moral relativists would adopt a neutral attitude in the conflict between Jews and the Palestinian Arabs—as political scientists like Yair Evron might have done back in 1973. To the contrary, today’s relativists have demonized Israel. Never mind the well-known fact that Arabs use their own women and children as human bombs. Because moral relativists—typically liberals—cannot acknowledge the enormity of evil, they not only ignore the genocidal intentions of Israel’s enemies, but they identify Jews as the cause of the conflict! Moral relativism has thus produced moral reversal!

Moral Relativism and Relativity

The relativism of the physicist differs profoundly from that of the moral relativist or pluralist. The theory of relativity denies the classical notions of absolute space, absolute time, and absolute motion; it does not deny the absolute. Far from excusing an easygoing pluralism, it appeals to scientists by virtue of what Einstein calls its comprehensive simplicity. The theory would explain “all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere.” Indeed, “Without the belief that it is possible to grasp reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there would be no science.”

As for Einstein himself, one may find in his philosophical ruminations expressions of moral relativism, but not in his sober and somber moments. In Out of My Later Years, first published in 1950, he writes:

I am firmly convinced that the passionate will for justice and truth has dome more to improve man’s condition than calculating political shrewdness which in the long run breeds general mistrust. Who can doubt that Moses was a better leader of mankind than Machiavelli?

But two pages later one reads:

I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds.

Evident here is the influence of logical positivism on Einstein, who wrote those words only five years after Hitler and his followers had murdered six million Jews and almost six million non-Jews. It was as if positivism had erased everything in the vastness of his rational mind with which to condemn this evil. And yet he did condemn this evil, moreover, in words the government of Israel should heed in dealing with Hitler’s successors! Thus, in a message honoring the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto, Einstein declared:

The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.

Is Obama Pro-Israel?

The November 12th edition of The Progress Report, the politically progressive author argues that the Obama administration is supportive of Israel. The following is an excerpt of the post titled “Obama’s Pro-Israel Record”.

The ongoing disagreement over the settlements has tended to obscure the Obama administration’s record of support for Israel, and has been used by critics to dishonestly label the President as “anti-Israel.” But by any reasonable measure, Obama has been an extremely pro-Israel president. He has significantly expanded trade between Israel and the U.S., and played an extremely important behind-the-scenes role in bringing about Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a long sought-after Israeli goal. In September, Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and challenged the international community to support Arab-Israeli peace, and declared that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate.” He also assured the world that “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.” In comments made to The Progress Report in August, Josh Block of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee remarked, “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance.”

It’s been rumored that Secretaty of State Clinton was pro-Israel prior to Obama’s becoming president. That would help explain pro-Israel of the staunchly pro-Muslim presidency, which is the resounding sentiment of many Israelis and others. Being representative of American interests such as Middle East peace and trade, Obama also would of necessity seek to get Israeli officials what they want in exchange for serious negotiations with the Palestinians.

Israel’s Unprogressive Tea Party

By Paul Eidleberg

Going back to the original, the Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the development of the American Revolution began near Boston in 1775.

Recall its famous slogan, “No taxation without representation.” This slogan is quite applicable to the people of Israel. The highly taxed citizens of this so-called democracy have had no real representation ever since the founding of the State 62 years ago. As I have often explained, Israel’s government makes the entire county a single electoral district. This compels citizens to vote for fixed party lists—really party oligarchs—and not for individual candidates. As a consequence, members of the Knesset are not individually accountable to the voters in regional elections. I am referring to geographical districts the size of which would make the voters more familiar with the character and abilities of the elected, while making the elected more familiar with the needs, opinions, and interests of their electors.

That the Tea Party is opposed to territorial retreat and the creation of an Arab Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is of course commendable. But it hasn’t the foggiest notion of how to accomplish this objective, which a complete overhaul of the SYSTEM of government that has brought Israel to its present existential crisis. From the Tea Party we will get more of the old propaganda, more of the old like newspaper ads, more of the old demonstrations, to which add one or two futile conferences at some hotel in Jerusalem. Typically absent is a program of structural reform to preclude the path of treason on which the present government is treading.

If the Tea Party was serious, it would arouse the people by telling them the truth that Israel is not a genuine democracy. Israel is living a lie that only serves the interests of its ruling elites. While the Knesset may not be as far away as London, its members might as well be on the moon. It’s a demonstrable fact that Israel’s political parties—religious as well as non-religious—repeatedly betray the trust their voters. A few examples must suffice.

Against its pledge to the nation during the 1992 election campaign, the Labor Party engaged in negotiations with PLO in contravention of Israeli law. In that same election, the religious Shas Party, which had pledged it would not join a Labor-Meretz government, did so for government perks and positions. These betrayals of the voters precipitated the Oslo Agreement of 1993 and the subsequent murder and maiming of thousands of Jews.

In 1999, no less than 29 MKs betrayed their voters in the democratic state of Israel by hopping over to rival parties. But the prize for political betrayal in the only democracy in the Middle East belongs to the Likud Party, known by some fools as “the trunk of the nation.” In 2003, the Likud adopted the Labor Party’s policy of “unilateral disengagement” from Gaza, a policy the Likud had campaigned against, indeed, a policy rejected by at least 70 percent of the voters.

Returning to the Tea Party, one of its two organizers, whose name I deign to ignore, not only opposed direct personal election of Knesset members in regional elections—the practice of almost every democracy—but he also opposed raising the electoral threshold from 1.5 to 2 percents, a threshold that makes it impossible to form a majority government. Instead we have Israel’s divisive, irresolute, and corrupt system of multiparty cabinet government—a form of government that has enabled the United States to interfere more readily in the making of Israel’s foreign policies.

Yet the leaders of the Tea Party are called “nationalists”! They seem more concerned about making it easier for party hacks to enter the Knesset and stay there.

If Israel’s Tea Party was a genuine nationalist movement, it would want to make the PEOPLE sovereign, and for starters, this can only be done by making MKs individually accountable to the voters in multidistrict elections.

Other serious reforms are required to empower the people of Israel, which I have discussed innumerable times in articles, books, and in radio interviews. So I can’t get excited about the Tea Party. It needs a leadership that has not been compromised by being part of the SYSTEM. It lacks a well-thought out program of political reform. We need something stronger than tea to save Israel from what is nothing less than a terminal disease.

Blame Obama for the Gaza flotilla disaster, Palestinian jihad for the Gaza blockade, and Israeli weakness for both

Israel’s blockade of traffic to Hamas controlled Gaza was a necessary effort to prevent weapons from being smuggle into Gaza. Israel was not preventing food and other aid from reaching the people living in Gaza. Israel’s military was both regulating and overseeing land deliveries of legitimate supplies. Of course, it was likely that shipments were delayed because of the screening process.

Erroneous propaganda was being circulated that enflamed many Muslims throughout the Middle East. Clearly, the government of Turkey had no right to sponsor the violent group of so-called activists whose purpose was to create an international conflict.

According to the World Tribune, deaths of the flotilla terrorists can be laid at the feet of the leader of the American Empire. Israel gave Pres. Obama advanced intel about the passengers of the flotilla. Pres. Obama demanded Israel use no conventional riot gear. Had the Israeli military boarded the ship with anti-riot gear, tear gas and guns with rubber bullets, no one would have likely died during the conflict.

Israeli soldiers boarded the flotilla were attacked and beaten. Those who had remained in their boat had no choice but to protect the lives of their comrades with deadly force.

To condemn Israel for protecting its citizens from suicide bombers, from missile attacks, and from those smuggling in the weapons to do so is no injustice to Palestinians in Gaza. It is an obligation of the Israeli government. Like walls, blockades are the least destructive means of protecting humans lives–lives on both sides.

Maybe, Muslims should try more peaceful means of resolving problems that violent demands and violent attacks.

One of the more ironic aspects of this tragic event is the apparent weakness of Israeli leaders. PM Netanyahu didn’t even consult his own security cabinet, according to the World Tribune. Remember, Pres. Obama has no military experience whatsoever. Instead, he followed the head of Empire to resolve Israel’s crisis. It is this apparent weakness that enabled Pres. Obama to dictate Israeli policy and emboldens Muslims with visions of one world Islam.

PA Pres. Abba’s Acknowledgment Of Jews Historic Right to Israel Meaningless Until Written Into Law: Why Doesn’t Pres. Obama Demand It?

The Arab League of Nations demands Israel stop building in so-called occupied territories, which means East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Palestinian Authority leader Abbas agrees and so does President Obama. In a recent article published by the Maan News Agency, Pres. Obama reportedly promised Abbas a prolonged settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It was chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat who confirmed to Arab League ministers that Obama made his promise off the record in order to avoid conflict with right-wing factions in Israel. Abbas is said to have conceded Jews historic right to the land of Israel, according to IECJ News. Abbas acknowledgment of the Jews right to Israel came during his speech before American Jewish leaders at an event organized by the Center for Middle East Peace.

Although PA President Abbas also acknowledged West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Abba’s claims were not official declarations. Unless such claims are incorporated into the written record of international treaty and national law, Abba’s claims are mere political propaganda aimed at winning the support of American Jews in order to use them to pressure Israeli leaders to concede to Arab demands. Unlike American leaders like Pres. Obama, Israelis remember PA legal documents have never been expunged of claims against the right of Zion (Israel) to exist in the mostly Arab Middle East.

The constitutional and related legal instruments are the official policy of the political entities. Until Abbas’s claims become legal polity recognized by the League of Arab Nations, peace between Israel and the PLO is mere smoke in the wind. For American leader like President Obama to give credence to anything less is to make America a real serious threat to the citizens of Israel. That has been the object lesson of the so-called Oslo agreement.

Sources: Maan News Agency, May 2, 2010 and International Christian Embassy Jerusalem News, June 10, 2010 (email)