Obama bulldozing Israel’s future His Islamic Education Is Showing Plus 20 Year With Rev. Wright

Obama bulldozing Israel’s future

By Victor Sharpe

President Obama is demonstrating an alarming hostility toward the Jewish state and has gone out of his way to describe Israeli homes in Judea and Samaria and in parts of Jerusalem, as “illegitimate.”    

The British government and the European Union are equally determined to deny legitimacy to Israeli construction of homes and schools in the biblical and ancestral Jewish homeland. They do so while actively encouraging with financial and diplomatic means the enormous unchecked building activity of Arab construction in and around Jerusalem and throughout Judea and Samaria. Indeed, many of these new Arab homes are luxurious villas financed with Saudi money, contrasting starkly with the humble homes in which most Israelis live. 


President Obama, along with the State Department, Britain and the EU are clearly engaged in de-legitimizing existing Jewish owned properties as well as new construction. This policy has been highlighted by the grotesque outpouring of hostility towards the recent removal of Arab squatters from Jewish owned homes in Jerusalem. The homes in question had been purchased decades ago by their Jewish residents who had subsequently been dispossessed of them by the Jordanian Arab occupiers after the 1948 Arab-Israel War.


I was visiting England and watching BBC television news as it reported on the removal of the Arab squatters. The BBC’s spin was so biased against Israel — no surprise there — that it almost seemed as if the reporter was in a parallel universe.


After many years of going through the Israeli court system and repeatedly serving notice on the Arab culprits to vacate the premises, the police finally took action. In Britain, squatters are given short shrift by society and the police, but if the miscreants happen to be Arabs in Jerusalem then the BBC displays an altogether different set of values.


Of course the BBC and most of the international mainstream media ignored the Jewish ownership of the properties in question. Such facts would complicate an otherwise delicious story of ‘wicked Israelis’ evicting ‘innocent’ Arabs. It would also be an inconvenient truth to refer to the legal title owned by the dispossessed Jews.


After illegally annexing the West Bank (recognized by only two countries, Britain and Pakistan) the Jordanian occupiers of east Jerusalem held the Jewish owned homes under a government entity known as the, “Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property.” This in itself clearly implied that the Jordanians considered the Jewish occupants as enemies. This was also an implicit admission that these homes were Jewish owned. Again the BBC predictably ignored that vital fact.


I spoke to several Brits after the BBC had aired the news report and all believed the story as it had been spun. They were completely unaware that the Arab squatters were in the homes illegally. One problem in Britain is that there is no Talk Radio as there is here in the United States. Thus, most folks have little recourse to verifying the truth or otherwise of BBC broadcasts. 


It was only after Israel defeated its Arab enemies in the defensive June, 1967 Six-Day War that the lands and properties earlier stolen from the Jews by the Arab aggressors had the opportunity, at last, of being returned to their rightful owners. Much of this land was purchased in the 19th century when Jerusalem was a remote and impoverished provincial town of the Ottoman Empire with a population of less than 40,000.


According to the eminent British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, in his book, Jerusalem Illustrated History Atlas, the estimated population of Jerusalem in 1845 as evidenced by Dr. Schultze, the Prussian Consul, comprised 7,120 Jews, 5,000 Muslims and 3,390 Christians. Sir Martin adds that by 1889 the population of Jerusalem had risen to 39,175 of whom Jews totaled 25,000, Christians 7,175 and Muslims 7,000. 


There are scores of Jewish properties, illegally occupied by Arabs, scattered throughout areas of east Jerusalem. They have remained in legal limbo because of international pressures against successive Israeli governments. This has led to endless delays in the return of the land and properties to their rightful owners. Sadly, the Obama Administration and the State Department are at the forefront of this continuing pressure.


It is too soon to know whether President Obama will shed his anti-Israel animus. It is, perhaps, too soon to learn if he is even aware of the earlier positions of American Administrations and the Congress with respect to the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1955. That bill underlined previous American understandings that “Jerusalem should remain undivided.


While the Obama Administration is busy bulldozing through policies inimical to the American way of life, buoyed by an impregnable Democrat voting majority, it is also reaching out to enemies of America, such as Syria and Iran, while betraying and discomfiting loyal allies of the United States. 


Its negative attitude toward Israel, its most loyal ally in the Middle East, is but one example of a deeply alarming policy shift. Others include the reluctance to support openly the mostly young protestors in Iran who bravely took to the streets to vent their outrage at the stolen election by Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Obama remained disturbingly quiet while the protestors were brutally beaten in the streets of Tehran.


However, our same president felt it necessary to voice his support to the ousted leftwing President Zelaya of Honduras who had attempted to illegally run for another term of office and who was poised to trash the Honduran constitution in the same way Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has done in his country.


Obama now has his own Afghanistan War, which according to Stephen Tanner, the author of Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War with the Taliban, has proven to be a part of the world no foreign power has ever conquered.


Such disturbing policy shifts by this president may yet come to haunt the security of the United States for decades to come. 


Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obama_bulldozing_israels_futur.html at August 14, 2009 – 12:20:18 PM EDT

The People’s Genie Is out of the Bottle

The People’s Genie Is out of the Bottle

By Lee Cary

Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders uncorked the bottle and the peoples’ Genie is out. 

He’s not happy, this Genie. In normal times, he sits there quietly inside the bottle. Sometimes watching. Mostly not. He finds politics boring, if not disgusting.


He sat and watched in silence as the TARP bill passed. Told the sky was falling, he looked up and saw it wasn’t. But he shrugged, trusting the bipartisan nature of the effort.  Then, as TARP rolled out, he stood up. The bailouts plowed a furrow across his forehead; his eyebrows lowered; his gaze intensified. But he stayed inside the bottle.


Along came the Stimulus Bill. Or, in the language of the big spenders, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Genie smelled the bacon through the glass bottle. He heard the squeals coming next from the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.  Another stampede of pigs.  


Inside the bottle, the Genie’s leaned forward, pressing his hands and nose flat against the glass. As he watched banks and car companies yield to government control, his jaw slid up. His lips pressed tight. His breathing shortened. But he stayed inside the bottle.


In his peripheral vision he saw a dancing troupe dressed like Cossacks enter the side door of the White House and disappear within. The Czars had come. The Genie watched, and wondered.


Events outside the bottle picked up speed. More crisis talk was in the air.  He checked the sky again. Still no signs of a falling.


Then, ever heavier and more complicated legislative tomes rolled out of Congress in carriages drawn by hubris and arrogance. Cap & Trade and Healthcare Reform. Their long official titles no longer impressed the Genie. But their huge price tags did. As did the mounting federal budget deficit for 2009. Now at $1.84 trillion, with more to come.


By this time, the Genie was rocking his bottle back-and-forth. He tried and failed to get the big spenders’ attention. His mouth moved, but no sound escaped his bottle, at least in the ears of the big spenders and the old news media, becoming ever more irrelevant with each news cycle as they peddle into obscurity. 


The people felt powerless because they were. They had no voice that carried. The big spenders pretended to listen, but then condescendingly told the people that everything happening was for their own good. It was meant to be, they said. Doing nothing, they said, is worse.


When the people protested, they were called rightwing extremists, disruptive malcontents, organized mobs, Nazis brown shirts, and other names which they are not. In fact, they’re average American citizens in a nation where nothing is average about them. On the planet, they are the most extraordinary of citizens.


Calling the people names was the last straw. The Genie tipped the bottle over, put his feet against the cork, and kick his way out.  Beware of an uncorked Genie.


As this happened, the people started coming to town hall meetings, meant mostly to convince them to go-along to get-along. They held the heavy healthcare bill in their hands. Dog-eared from having been read.  


The big spenders were shocked to learn that the people had taken time to do what they, the professional legislators, had not done – they’d read the bill!  The people came armed with enlightened questions, reasoned arguments, and impassioned opinions. All things the big spenders lacked. In some cases, numbers were handed out at the entry door to qualify and order those who could speak. Then, one after the other, questioners asked clear, targeted questions. Sharpshooters picked at random. Remarkable. 


The people stood, a furrow plowed across their foreheads. Their eyebrows lowered. Their chins up, lips pressed tight, gaze intensified. The Genie was out. When the big spenders told them that their reading of the bill was incorrect, the people found their voice. And, though some quivered with nervousness, they pushed against the glass. This time their voice was most definitely heard.


Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership let the Genie out of the bottle. It was an unintended consequence of their crass and heavy-handed methods of leadership. They forgot, if they ever knew, that Americans can be led, but they cannot be herded.


Obama and Friends though it possible to ride roughshod over the Genie’s people.  They remembered the swooning crowds seduced by the oratorical skills of their leader. They assumed his charisma would carry the day, again. The people would fold and comply, even if they might not commit. And, for those who would not fold easily, there was always the muscle mustered from Obama’s acolytes and allies. There was always the hype served up on demand by the old media. There was always the cumulative ridicule and name-calling spit from the lips of their Party leaders. These things would deflect the people’s skepticism and temper their anger. So they thought.


They were wrong. All these things did was make the people angrier and harden their determination to be heard, and more – to be heeded.   


One young woman at a town hall meeting said that, for the first time in her life, she was taking politics seriously because so much is at stake. Her freedoms mostly. Her children’s future, too. She said the effort to force the healthcare bill on the people “had awakened a sleeping giant.”  She could have ended her sentence with the words Admiral Isoraku Yamamoto spoke after the Japanese attacked on Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”    


We are watching each other stand up in town hall meetings and face our representatives. Those politicians with the courage to attend anyway. We watch live, and we watch on that most sensational and powerful new medium of the web: YouTube. The peoples’ articulate and courageous statements procreate exponentially, multiplying like amoebas on steroids, as we feed on the resolve of others. A resolve only terrible to those who would silence dissent. Wonderful to the rest of us.


So the Genie is out of the bottle. And it’ll be a good while before he thinks it safe to crawl back in.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_peoples_genie_is_out_of_th.html at August 14, 2009 – 12:15:12 PM EDT

AMERICORPS Recruiting a New Generation of Leftists


AmeriCorps: Recruiting a New Generation of Leftists Obama recently signed a bill to triple the taxpayer-funded AmeriCorps’ membership.


  • Public-service network that pays young adults to work on various projects with nonprofit groups, public agencies, and faith-based organizations
  • Funded by the federal government
  • Traditionally has promoted Democratic Party agendas
  • Has funneled taxpayer dollars to the National Council of La Raza
  • Has longstanding ties to ACORN

AmeriCorps is a government-funded public-service network that was formally launched when President Bill Clinton signed the 1993 National and Community Service Trust Act, thereby establishing the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). CNCS administers AmeriCorps and seeks “to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering.” From its inception, AmeriCorps incorporated two existing national service programs: the VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) program that President Lyndon Johnson established in 1964, and the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), a volunteer network engaging in environmental and social-welfare projects.

Membership in AmeriCorps is open to all U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents age 17 and older. Each AmeriCorps member works a 10- to 12-month stint with a nonprofit group, public agency, or faith-based organization that participates in the AmeriCorps program. These entities range in size from small community groups to influential, nationally known federations. Among the tasks on which AmeriCorps members work are the following:

AmeriCorps members are paid workers, not volunteers. They may elect to serve either full or part time during their 10- to 12-month tours of duty; full-time members receive an allowance of approximately $11,800 per year. Moreover, upon completing their period of service they receive either an Education Award of up to $5,350 which can be used to pay for college or to pay off student loans, or $1,200 in cash.

Financed by the federal government, AmeriCorps funnels taxpayer dollars into the coffers of selected nonprofit organizations, which in turn use that money to pay the young people who register for a term of service with them. The recipients of AmeriCorps grants tend to be organizations whose politics fall on the left side of the spectrum, and whose efforts are focused on such projects as environmental activism, social-welfare programs, legal-aid assistance, political activism, teacher-education programs, community-organizer training, public health initiatives, childcare services, and ethnic-identity politics. Among the more notable recipients of AmeriCorps funding is the National Council of La Raza.

As Newsmax.com’s Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler has observed, AmeriCorps volunteers have traditionally “been put to work to promote the causes of Democrats, such as lobbying against the ‘three-strikes’ anti-crime legislation in California or for expanding housing subsidies and rent control.”

AmeriCorps consists of three main programs: AmeriCorps National and State, AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC):

  • AmeriCorps National and AmeriCorps State “provid[e] grants directly to … public and nonprofit organizations that sponsor service programs, Indian tribes, and consortia” on a national and state level, respectively.
  • Americorps VISTA is “designed specifically to fight poverty…. VISTA members commit to serve full-time for a year at a nonprofit organization or local government agency.”
  • Americorps NCCC is “a full-time, team-based residential program” whose mission is “to strengthen communities and develop leaders …”

As of mid-2009, AmeriCorps had nearly 75,000 active members. In fiscal year 2006, the organization’s budget, funded by U.S. taxpayers, was $525.6 million. Beyond that, AmeriCorps leverages more than $200 million annually in matching funds from non-government sources to support its activities.

In March 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 321 to 105 in favor of a $6 billion piece of legislation to more than triple the size of the AmeriCorps program — from 75,000 positions to 250,000 — over an eight-year period. Also in March, the Senate voted 74 to 14 in favor of a similar, $5.7 billion bill co-sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. President Barack Obama signed a compromise measure into law in April 2009. The new legislation increased the value of the AmeriCorps Education Award from $4,725 to $5,350.

Noting that with the passage of the foregoing bill “the federal civilian workforce is being increased by more than 13 percent,” Ronald Kessler wrote:

“Under the guise of promoting volunteerism, President Obama and congressional Democrats have created a massive government program that will push their agenda…. [C]ontrary to Obama’s claim that the program will promote volunteerism, it is in fact another massive government employment program…. By putting a vast army of young people on the government payroll, the Democrats are expanding their reach by teaching the young that government is the answer to every problem. Instead of giving young people an incentive to help others through the free enterprise system or though genuine charity work, Obama and congressional Democrats are creating a make-work boondoggle that will further their control over the political process.”

Republican Senator Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said: “We’re talking about a government program that will hire a quarter of a million, supposedly as volunteers that we pay. That will be the 14th largest employer in the country, assuming the federal government can actually manage this thing.”

In April 2009, Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota said:

“It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government…. I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.”

Matthew Spalding, director of the Center of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), says: “We need to separate voluntary service — which we strongly support — and service that is sponsored and instituted by the government. That’s something very different and something that, in our opinion, we need to oppose.”

AmeriCorps has a history of fiscal chaos. In 2003 the organization lost track of how many people it had enlisted into its program, and of how much money was available to finance the stipends its members had been promised. During a Committee on Appropriations hearing that spring, Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski referred to AmeriCorps as the “Enron of nonprofits.” In June of that year, AmeriCorps announced that it had only enough funds to pay half of its members.

AmeriCorps has longstanding ties to ACORN. According to a congressional report, “AmeriCorps members of [ACORN Housing Corporation] raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities [for ACORN], and gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation.”



The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East

The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East
By: Steven Plaut
Friday, August 14, 2009


Israel’s enemies around the world have poisoned the debate with their smoke and mirrors.
If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and start listening to and reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state. A near-consensus exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) “occupied Arab” lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.   

The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with Middle East history.   

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli “settlements.” In fact Israel has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians — like recognizing Israel’s right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called “moderate” Palestinians reject any such idea.   

Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its maliciousness and anti-Semitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.  

Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:  

1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.   

Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of “Palestine” to Britain at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.   

2. Falsehood:  The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory.  

Truth:  Jews lived in “Palestine,” which is the Land of Israel or “Eretz Yisroel,” continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of “Palestinians” migrated into “Palestine,” during the same period as the Zionist waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The “Palestinian Arabs” in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria. Ironically, they were motivated to become “Palestinians” in the first place thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into “Palestine” and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of “Palestinian” Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is difficult to dig in the ground of “Palestine” without uncovering Jewish artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine’s territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the original “two-state solution,” the same “innovation” now being promoted for the Western third of the remaining part of Palestine.

3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression and obstinacy.  

Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a proposal to create in to create in Western “Palestine” two states to replace the British Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched an attack of genocidal aggression against the Jews, invaded “Palestine” and gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967 when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it was created. The reason for the attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement today.  

4. Falsehood:  Israel conducted “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948-49.  

Truth:  The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate. Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves “Palestinian refugees” in order to get handouts from the UN and other international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.  

5. Falsehood:  Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.  

Truth:  Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate    

6. Falsehood:  Arabs engage in aggression and terrorism because Israel occupies territories.  

Truth:  Israel occupies territories (that had been controlled by Jordan and Egypt before 1967) because of Arab aggression and terrorism. Had the Arabs made peace with Israel after 1949, the West Bank and Gaza would have remained under the hegemony of Arabs and they could easily have erected a Palestinian Arab state there any time they wished. Instead, they attacked Israel in an attempt at genocidal extermination in 1967 and they lost.  

7. Falsehood:  The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Israeli opposition to Palestinian self-determination.  

Truth:  The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel’s existence within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of “Palestinian Arabs,” but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish self-determination, using violence.  

No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any “homeland,” although they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a “people” at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when “Palestine” was detached from Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world, as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab assault of annihilation and genocide.  

The Arab world invented the “Palestinian people” so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term “self-determination” has been repeated as a rhetorical “inalienable right” for so long that few people recall that pursuing “self-determination” can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely “helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination.”  He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of “self-determination” within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany’s neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the “misery of mistreated ethnic Germans,” supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. “Self-determination” was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.  

The Arab world decided that the “Palestinians” must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of “self-determination.”   

8. Falsehood:  Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and as a response to Israeli settlements there.  

Truth:  Palestinian terrorism against Jews began in the 1920s, escalated in the 1930s, continued non-stop in the 1940s even in the midst of World War II, and reached heights of barbarism in the 1950s. All this was long before Israel “occupied” anything. The PLO was set up long before the Six Day War, meaning before Israel “occupied” the West Bank and Gaza, and before those areas held a single Israeli settlement.  

9. Falsehood: Israel has no right to build settlements in the West Bank.  

Truth:  Israel has as much right to build settlements in the West Bank as France has to build towns in Alsace and Lorraine, or as Poland has to build in areas that once held ethnic Germans. The Arabs launched a series of wars of aggression against Israel and lost. Aggressors who lose a war also lose territory. The bulk of Jewish “settlers” are actually Israelis living in the suburbs of Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967. A handful of small rural “settlements” have been constructed in empty West Bank lands from which no Arab civilians were evicted. In any real peace settlement, Jews would have as much right to live in the West Bank as Arabs have to live inside Israel. A peace accord that rules out such an arrangement would be no peace accord at all.  

10. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict continues because Israel refuses to share its land and resources with Palestinians.  

Truth:  The Middle East conflict continues because the Arab world refuses to share its land and resources with Jews. It is about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. The Arabs today control 22 countries and territory nearly twice the size of the United States (including Alaska), whereas Israel cannot be seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an ethnic group control more territory than any other ethnic group on earth. They refuse to share even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the Jews, even in a territory smaller than New Jersey. Without the West Bank, Israel at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles wide, about the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab world demands that Israel relinquish the West Bank to Palestinian terrorism is so that it can be used to attack Israel again and so that Israel can at last be militarily annihilated. The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast amounts of wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a “homeland” for Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any time.   

11. Falsehood:  Israel deals with Palestinian violence and terrorism using excessive disproportionate force.  

Truth:  The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally killed by Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians injured in Israeli anti-terror operations is tiny when compared with NATO and Allied military operations in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Given the near universal support among Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against Jews, the self-restraint and moderation used by Israel in dealing with the threat has no precedent in the world. Israel’s own Arabs make little attempt to hide their open identification with the genocidal enemies of their own country and they by and large support the annihilation of the state in which they hold citizenship. No other democratic country facing such open sedition and identification with the enemy in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the same restraint as shown by Israel. In World War II, when faced with a far less-dangerous problem, the United States locked up its ethnic-Japanese domestic population in internment camps. Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its separatist terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated their internal Fifth Columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.   

Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy. Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled altogether their minority populations. Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action programs that benefit Arabs, finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli Arabs preserve and develop their culture, overfunds Arab municipalities, and turns a blind eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including with regard to illegal mass squatting on publicly-owned lands. Israel is a Western democracy with a Scandinavian style social welfare system, the only democracy in the Middle East. It is hard to come up with words to mock satisfactorily the ludicrous nature of the complaints about Israeli “mistreatment” of Arabs. These complaints come from the very same people who are apologists for genocidal Islamofascist terrorist movements and for the Arab fascist states, regimes that are among the most barbarous and openly war-seeking on earth. The endless complaints about “human rights violations” of the “Palestinians” by Israel are a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of aggression against Israeli survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the world’s foremost illustration of “Moynihan’s Law,” which holds:  “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.”   

12. Falsehood:  Israel can achieve peace by trading “Land for Peace” and by relinquishing territories that it “occupies.”  

Truth:  Every time Israel relinquishes territory it “occupies” it triggers an escalation of terror and violence by Arabs against Jews. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Arabs. This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip produced a barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians inside Israel (NOT in the “occupied territories”), a barrage that eventually forced Israel’s reluctant leaders to carry out the “Cast Lead” operation against Gaza terrorism. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli socialist Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006, and several times that number now poised to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals — before which there had been no suicide bombings. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the “liberated” lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from Israel relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.  

13. Falsehood:  The Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Israel from just criticism.  

Falsehood:  The anti-Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Palestinians, Arab fascist regimes, and Islamofascism from just criticism. While the media overflow with nonsensical talk about a “Zionist/Israel Lobby,” it would only be a small exaggeration to claim that there is no such thing at all. The anti-Zionist lobby binds together anti-Semites and fanatics, ranging from Islamists, to the radical Left to the Neo-Nazi Right. There is little today that separates anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and I have never met an anti-Zionist who was not also an anti-Semite. (Jewish leftist anti-Zionists are the self-hating moral equivalents of Taliban John and Tokyo Rose).   

14. Falsehood:  The Middle East conflict can be resolved through “Two States for Two Peoples.”

Truth:  The “Two States for Two Peoples” idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after “Two States for Two Peoples” would be implemented, the new “Palestinian state” would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the “moderates” within the PLO insist that any “Israel” left standing within “Two States for Two Peoples” must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any “two-state solution” on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from “Palestine” and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.

That such a “two-state solution” will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a “plan of stages,” after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The “two-state solution” is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called “one-state solution,” favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.

Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel’s existence, even if that war is delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the outbreak of a Potemkin “peace” in the Middle East produced by the end of Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinians.”  

Since the Oslo “peace process” began in the early 1990s, the working hypothesis endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large numbers of IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most urgent task at hand is to end the Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce nothing but escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, certainly not stability or peaceful relations. It will seek war with the rump Israel, and will seek to draw the entire Moslem world into that war. It will be indifferent to the economic and social problems of its own citizens.   

Humans seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth repeated over long periods of time. In an era in which technology, politics, and science change so rapidly, many consider it to be implausible that a statement that had been true 60 years ago could still be true today. Surely, they insist, explanations from the past, such as those of the Middle East conflict, must be obsolete by now, replaced with new updated “theories” and more-modern perceptions of reality.

The result of all this is pseudo-history, where people invent new “theories” about some of the most widely-accepted truths of history. No subject has been subject to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism and denial of “out-of date” truths as the Middle East. George Orwell once said that the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious truths need to be restated because they are under assault by so many dishonest men.  

The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a right to set up their own state, and creation of such a state would result in escalated warfare and bloodshed, not peace. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. Even if such a right ever existed, the Palestinians – like the Sudeten Germans – would have forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism. Their pacification today requires reimposing of martial rule by Israel and a thorough program of De-nazification.

The promotion of a “Two States for Two Peoples” solution has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians openly calling for violence against Jews and for the destruction of Israel. The “solution” is a recipe for more bloodshed and strife.

Steven Plaut is a professor at the Graduate School of the Business Administration at the University of Haifa and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. A collection of his commentaries on the current events in Israel can be found on his “blog” at www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

The Audacity of Dissent

The Audacity of Dissent
By: Gregory Gethard
Friday, August 14, 2009


Democrats and the White House try to silence growing grassroots opposition to ObamaCare.

Call them community organizers.

All across the country, Americans alarmed by the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of health care have been coming together to vent their concerns in town-hall meetings and protests. Some are worried about the possible effects of ObamaCare on health care services, the cost of insurance, and the recovery of the economy; others are troubled by the intrusion of government into their lives.

Given his background, one might expect President Obama to take seriously this vigorous grassroots reaction to his policies. Instead, aided by Congressional Democrats, the White House has taken to painting this mass outpouring of civic discontent as a fringe phenomenon – driven by extremists, un-American in its aims, and requiring careful monitoring so that any “fishy” concerns and criticisms about the administration’s health care plans are reported to the proper (read: government) channels.

The town-hall critics won’t be so easily silenced. One of the primary reasons so many have flocked to these meetings concerns the cost of the reforms that the administration seeks. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the Senate’s proposed health care bill at $1 trillion. With a price tag of that size, many are concerned about its potential to increase the ever-growing budget deficit, which the Obama administration itself says will approach $1.84 trillion by 2010. A deficit that big, many worry, could have dire ramifications for the economy.

On the minds of many, too, is the possibility that the administration will raise taxes on the middle class – even as it has denied all intentions of doing so. But the arithmetic of health care reform only serves to bolster suspicions of a looming tax hike. In order to pay for the plan, the government must raise $544 billion in taxes, which will supposedly come from those making $250,000 per year or more. But given that consumer spending still has yet to rebound, and that personal incomes are still falling, it’s hard to see how instituting $544 billion in new taxes will benefit the economy. And if the rich don’t generate the required revenue, the middle class will likely be forced to pick up the tab.

Cost is just one of the contentious questions surrounding ObamaCare. Others are concerned about the government intruding into their health care. The administration boasts that they are simply creating a government-sponsored health care plan that would compete with private insurers. But this presents many problems for the private insurers with which the government intends to compete. According to Texas Republican Congressman Lamar Smith, who wrote in the Christian Science Monitor:

Obama’s claim that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan” rings hollow. Government intervention in private markets has consequences. A public option wouldn’t “level the playing field” – it would destroy it. After all, a government plan can afford to lose money indefinitely. Private plans don’t have that luxury. Unable to match the government’s market manipulation, they’d soon fold. Employers would drop private insurance, thereby decreasing choice and moving the country toward a single-payer system. Without private insurers making up the difference, government-controlled prices would reduce the supply of healthcare services and lead to further rationing.

Many are also concerned about so-called “death panels” in which a government bureaucrat could be placed in a position to determine if it would cost too much money to keep someone alive. While there is certainly some hysteria about this fear, the fact is that the government does intend to play a role during end-of-life scenarios. If some version of ObamaCare is passed, doctors may be given an incentive to go over end-of-life counseling with patients; to receive these funds, a doctor must adhere to a government-enforced list of questions during these sessions. ABC News chief medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, supports these provisions, but he warns that they may cross a line, saying that this provision “maybe has too much the flavor of reporting back to big government or big brother.”

With so much to dislike in the health care legislation, it’s easy to see why people have been turning out in droves to town hall meetings. And the numbers show that people are against it: a recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 53% now oppose the plan, up nine points since the end of June. Re The backlash against health care reform is also reflected in the president’s slipping polling numbers. According to a Quinnipiac poll, 52 percent of people surveyed no longer support the way Obama is handling the health care issue. And he currently has a 50 percent approval rating, down 7 percent in a single month – largely, it seems, because of health care.

Unable to convince the public to support its reforms, the administration, with Congressional Democrats leading the charge, has turned on the growing opposition. While Obama has started to bend the facts in his public statements about health care, other Democrats are making disparaging remarks about the vocal opposition at town hall meetings. In a USA Today op-ed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called the town-hall protests “un-American.”

Now-Democrat Arlen Specter has found himself embroiled in this fray. Earlier this week, Specter hosted a series of Town Hall meetings throughout central Pennsylvania; much like his brethren across the country, he has been met with very loud crowds opposed to health care. However, Specter has cast their opinions aside, saying these people were “unrepresentative” of the American people, despite polls showing otherwise. Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill publicly admonished an audience that had become loud during her comments. There’s even video of longtime Democratic Michigan Congressman John Dingell comparing the town hall demonstrators to the Ku Klux Klan.

But while the House Democrats are painting those opposed to health care reform as un-American, the administration has decided to go another route entirely. Last week, on its official website, The White House asked citizens to report on each other:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The mainstream media has also helped paint the town-hall protesters as fringe extremists. Timeswatch, a website that monitors biase in New York Times articles, has done an excellent job comparing media coverage of the health care debate versus coverage of George W. Bush’s attempts at overhauling Social Security. One glaring example of the Times’ portrayal of the town hall protestors was clear on Tuesday, when an article on Specter’s meeting described angry crowds that were “almost entirely white and irritable.” Yes those that heckled then-Senator Rick Santorum at a similar style meeting held in 2005 were described as “freewheeling.”

It’s a new age of irony that we live in. The president is a self-described community organizer who used his skills at grassroots activism to launch a populist movement that swept him into office. Now his administration, along with its Congressional allies, is worried about a determined civic movement that is turning against it.

The folks turning up for the town-halls may be maligned by their elected officials. They may be painted as rage-filled lunatics by the media. But unfortunately for the Obama administration and its transformational vision for health care, they aren’t going away.

Gregory Gethard is a Philadelphia-based freelance writer.