|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
Shimon Peres |
|||||||||||
|
THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH An HIR series
________________________________________________________ Table of Contents < Introduction < The Oslo process, from the point of view of the PLO < Did Israeli leaders understand that the PLO always meant to
exterminate the Israeli Jews? < Shimon Peres < Other Israeli leaders < The Israeli ruling elite has covered up the German Nazi origins of the
PLO < Final remarks |
|||||||||||
|
Introduction There appears to be a growing consensus among
friends of Israel, especially in the wake of Israel’s war with Hezbollah,
that Israeli leaders have been radically endangering the security of the
Jewish state with their ‘peace’ policies. Within this consensus, however,
there is a controversy as to why. One hypothesis says that Israeli leaders,
for many years, have been uniformly and dramatically stupid. This view is
popular among Jewish patriots, who (a) seem to find it natural that
pathological stupidity should be abundant among Jewish leaders, and (b)
possess Buddhist patience as they wait for their mentally challenged leaders
to come to their senses. An alternative hypothesis says that the mental
powers of Israeli leaders are fine -- simply, they are corrupt traitors. No hypothesis is correct just because we like it, or
because it agrees with our prejudices, or because the alternative is too
scary. A scientist must provisionally accept or reject a hypothesis on the
basis of the current balance of material evidence that either supports or
undermines it. What I will do below is contribute a brief analysis of
evidence speaking to this particular controversy: Are Israeli leaders idiots
or traitors? Since, in the last 20 years, the most important
policies relevant to Israeli security have been those connected with the Oslo
so-called ‘peace’ process and its offshoots (‘Road Map,’ ‘Disengagement,’
‘Convergence’), the most important issues to consider are the following: 1) What has
the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) been trying to achieve through
Oslo?; 2) How aware
have Israeli leaders been of the PLO’s intentions?; and 3) What have
Israeli leaders done with their knowledge of PLO intentions? Once the evidence has been examined, we will see
that the answers to the above questions are the following: 1) The PLO has
always and to this day meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews; 2) Israeli
leaders have always been perfectly aware of this; and 3) Israeli
leaders have sought to convince the Israeli public otherwise, covering up for
the PLO and representing it as a ‘partner for peace.’ The point of this has
been to convince Israelis to accept the PLO inside the Jewish state as the
government of the Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza. This does not support the ‘stupidity’ hypothesis. If the ‘treason’ hypothesis is correct, then it will
mean that a pattern witnessed in World War II -- when many mainstream Jewish
leaders betrayed their fellow Jews even as the European Jewish population was
being exterminated -- is repeating itself (see Part
0, for how Jewish leaders sabotaged an anti-Nazi
boycott in 1933 that came within an inch of destroying Hitler after he came
to power, Part 1,
for the treasonous behaviors of Diaspora Jewish leaders during WWII, and Part 4
for the treasonous behaviors of Israeli leaders).[1] If ordinary
Jews do not now quickly defend themselves from their current leadership,
millions of innocent Jews will die again. Time has
run out. |
Is it possible
for one country A to cause another country B to assist its own enemies and
commit suicide? Yes, so long as certain conditions obtain. |
||||||||||
|
The Oslo process,
from the point of view of the PLO In The Oslo Syndrome, historian Kenneth Levin
writes: “Shortly after
signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO
leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White
House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over
Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s]
Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the
so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation
Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations,
then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s
annihilation.”[2] The words “Israel’s annihilation” are not synonymous
with ‘negotiation to obtain a PLO state’; their meaning is closer to ‘the
murder of every Jew now living in Israel.’ And in fact the PLO constitution
calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.[3] So Yasser Arafat’s so-called
Plan of Phases -- his entire approach to the Oslo accords -- looks like a
‘Trojan Horse’ strategy. The expression ‘Trojan Horse’ is taken from the
ancient Greek work The Iliad. In this story, a large coalition of
Greeks attack the city of Troy just because the wife of a Greek king had
eloped with a Trojan prince. After ten whole years of unremitting bloodshed,
the Greeks get tired of not being able to pierce Troy’s defenses, so they
invent a ruse: they build a huge wooden horse and leave it on the beach as an
apparent gift to the victorious Trojan defenders, then pretend to leave in
their ships. In reality, the Greeks have parked their ships in a nearby bay,
where they wait for Odysseus, Achilles, and a few other Greek soldiers
squirreled inside the hollow horse to let them in while Troy sleeps. As
planned, after the hopelessly gullible Trojans bring into their city the
wooden horse, the Greeks inside it creep out under cover of dark, murder the
guards, open the city gates to their brethren, and then every Trojan man,
woman, and child is slaughtered. The city is burned to the ground. Now compare: In 1948, after the Arabs rejected a
legal UN vote to create an Arab and a Jewish state in what had been British Mandate
‘Palestine,’ the Arabs announced that, rather than live peacefully side by
side, they much preferred to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East. Azzam
Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, proudly announced: “This will be
a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like
the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[4] This was, mind you, immediately after the Holocaust. And this was only the first of many genocidal
attacks launched by the Arab neighbors of Israel (see here
for a review).[5]
Each attack was launched because the previous one had failed to annihilate
Israel, so after a while the repeated failure started to wear on the Arabs,
just as the Greeks had also become annoyed at their inability to destroy
Troy. Thus, after many years of failed genocidal attacks launched with
conventional armies against Israel’s borders, the Arabs decided, after the
defeat they suffered in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, to do like the Greeks and
employ a ruse to get the genocidal soldiers inside Israel’s walls: this ruse
was Yasser Arafat’s 1974 ‘Plan of Phases.’ The idea was simple: like the Greeks, appear to concede
defeat, and make a gift in exchange for an invitation into the Jewish state.
The gift was the promise of peace. Once inside, however, the PLO would use
its power over the Arab population living there to indoctrinate it into the
most hateful and violent anti-Jewish ideology, proceeding thereafter with the
mass killing.[6] This Plan of Phases, thanks
to US pressure, became the Oslo ‘peace’ process.[7]
In 2001, a top PLO official candidly explained the
strategy to the Arab press by making an explicit comparison to The Iliad: “...Faisal
Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem...[was] quoted as likening the
Oslo accords to a ‘Trojan horse.’ ...the weekly Al-Arabi quotes Husseini as
calling the Oslo accords ‘just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards
something bigger…the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan)
river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the conflict will last
for another thousand years or for many generations.’”[8] But Faisal Husseini’s recent explanation was not
really needed. As mentioned above, Arafat made his Plan of Phases known to
his fellow Arabs in 1974, long before the PLO was brought into the
Jewish state. And, as we learn above, Arafat repeated the PLO's intent to his
followers in 1993, over Jordanian television, and immediately after
the White House ceremony in which Oslo was agreed to: the Oslo process,
Arafat explained, would be his Plan of Phases. |
Yitzhak Rabin
Oslo handshake
Yasser Arafat • The
idea was •
|
||||||||||
|
Did Israeli
leaders understand that the PLO always meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews? It is true that Arafat did not loudly explain his
Plan of Phases to the Western press, but to his Arab audiences. However,
Israel has an intelligence service naturally equipped with speakers of Arabic
who monitor the statements Israel’s Arab enemies make in their native
language. This means that, of course, Israeli leaders had to know
about Arafat’s Plan of Phases as soon as it was promulgated. They also had to
know what Arafat was saying on Jordanian television even as he was ‘agreeing’
to Oslo. But even should anybody argue that Israel’s famed
intelligence service is in fact so pathetically inept that nobody in it ever
thought to monitor what the antisemitic Arabs say in Arabic, this will not
work as an excuse because Arafat’s intentions occasionally did surface in the
Western press, in English. For example, there is Faisal Husseini’s
statement above, which appeared in the Western press. Less recently, right as
the Oslo ‘peace’ process -- meant to bring the PLO into Israel -- was getting
under way (1994), the Evening Standard (London) reported on a speech
by Arafat in which he straightforwardly explained his ‘Trojan Horse’ view of
the Oslo process to his followers.[9] So Israeli leaders obviously
knew what the PLO’s intentions were. And yet they never informed the Israeli
public, defending instead the claim that the PLO had changed, and that by
inviting the PLO into the Jewish state they were supposedly protecting the
security of ordinary Israelis! Not only that. My reader should keep foremost in his
or her mind that, in bringing the PLO into the Jewish state, Israeli
leaders revived the PLO. How so? They revived it because this antisemitic
terrorist organization had already been defeated, and was languishing
far away from Israel, in Tunisian exile, when Oslo began.[10] This point is crucial. Now, I have found that many -- perhaps most --
Jewish patriots, when they are confronted with the above, feel a quite
insistent -- even passionate -- urge to interpret all this as stupidity on
the part of Israeli politicians. In my view this kind of innocence reveals
that Jews suffer from pathologies of reasoning that impair their ability to
think clearly about their self defense, and which make it easier for
antisemites to kill large numbers of Jews. In order to defend the Jewish
people we must therefore expose these pathologies of reasoning. One way to do
this is to put the geopolitical problems that Jews face in personal
terms. Why? Because the fog of propaganda that surrounds the geopolitical
problem is absent in the problem's translation to the personal level, so it
is easier to think about. Thus, consider the following thought experiment.
John Doe knows (crucial point) that a criminal has promised to murder
John’s family as soon as he can get into John’s home. But what does John do?
He gives said criminal the house keys. After his family has been murdered,
what will happen to John? Naturally, he will either be quickly convicted for
conspiring to murder his wife and children, or else he will be quickly
declared insane. What is certain is that no court will accept the argument
that John -- in earnest stupidity -- believed this was the best way to protect
his family. Why? Because nobody, quite simply, is that stupid. The only way to argue that Israeli leaders somehow meant
well when they brought the PLO -- an organization pledged to murder every Jew --
to become the government over the Arabs in the Jewish state, is therefore to
insist that Israeli leaders didn’t understand what the PLO meant to
do. I have already shown above that this cannot be defended, given how
dramatic and consistent Arafat’s very public explanations of his intentions.
But this point cannot be emphasized too much, so consider the following: “Allusions to
the [‘Trojan Horse’] Plan of Phases became a staple in Arafat’s addresses in
Arabic, with more than a dozen such references within a few weeks of the
White House ceremony [the ceremony that officially inaugurated the Oslo
process!]. So also were Arafat’s comparisons of Oslo to Mohammed’s dealings with the
Quraysh [Banu Qurayzah], a [Jewish!] tribe on the
Arabian peninsula. Mohammed negotiated a treaty with the Quraysh in 628, but
two years later, when his forces had grown stronger, he attacked and defeated
them [in fact, he exterminated them].
Likewise featured in Arafat’s speeches during this time were calls to Jihad,
or holy war, against Israel. Arafat’s
arrival in the territories, in July, 1994, and his assumption of control over
Palestinian schools and an expanded Palestinian media system were marked by
the promoting of these and related themes in Palestinian school curricula and
media. Palestinian children were taught that all of ‘Palestine’ from the
Jordan to the Mediterranean -- that is, the West Bank, Gaza, and all of
Israel -- belongs to them and is holy Islamic land. Jews have no historic
connections to the land and no legal claim to any of it but are merely evil
usurpers. Palestinian children were also to learn that it is not only their
right but their obligation to dedicate themselves to Israel’s destruction.
Arafat-controlled Palestinian television, including children’s television,
and other Palestinian media outlets promoted the same claims and the same
agenda.”[11] To get a sense for how extreme the Jew-killing
propaganda of the PLO, consider only that Friday sermons transmitted by
Palestinian Authority TV will do such things as shame Arabs who have not yet
strapped a bomb around their own child and sent him to go blow himself up in
the middle of Jewish men, women, and children.[12] If you live in the West it is of course relatively
difficult to become aware of this, as it hardly ever surfaces in the Western
press, but the Israeli government and media, naturally, have always
known precisely what is going on in the PLO’s media. So what have they done
with this information? They have covered it up, lest the Israeli public and
Diaspora Jews oppose the Oslo process that has progressively empowered the
PLO inside the Jewish state. “The
Labor-Meretz coalition government was typically silent on the anti-Israel
indoctrination. At the same time, the Israeli media...enthusiastically
supportive of the Oslo accords, supported this silence by suppressing
coverage of Arafat’s incitement-laden speeches and of the prominence of the
same themes in Palestinian schools and media. Indeed, a kind of underground
system evolved to monitor hate-mongering in Palestinian school texts and
media in the absence of coverage by the Israeli government and mainstream
Israeli news outlets.”[13] A cover up suggests malice, not stupidity. Also, against the view that the Israeli ruling elite
is stupid, there is the additional problem that, immediately after Yasser
Arafat was brought from Tunis and installed in the West Bank and Gaza,
terrorism against innocent Israelis quintupled.[14] Since Arafat’s promise had
been that, if brought into Israel, terrorism would end (for which promise he
was given the Nobel Peace Prize![15]), the automatic sharp rise in
terrorism against innocent Israelis should have put an immediate end to the
Oslo process. After all, this is what Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and
Shimon Peres had famously and explicitly promised the Israelis: that if
terrorism did not go away, the Oslo process would swiftly die. But rather than abort the Oslo process when the
violence increased five-fold upon Arafat’s arrival, the Israeli and Western
governments and media protested that the ‘other’ terrorist organizations, Hamas
and Islamic Jihad, supposedly not allied with Arafat, were to blame for this
violence. (In fact, HIR has shown that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have always
worked in close cooperation with the PLO to kill Jews and any Arabs opposed
to such killings[16]). In the face of ongoing
terrorism, the Israeli and Western governments and media accused anybody
opposed to more Oslo concessions to the PLO of supposedly playing right into
the terrorist attempt to ‘ruin the peace process.’ In this way anybody
critical of Oslo was loudly equated by the Israeli government and media with
the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as an ‘enemy of peace,’ whereas the
PLO itself was consistently represented as the supposed ‘partner for peace.’
With this cover story, the Israeli government and media defended the rush to
give the PLO more and more power as a strategy, supposedly, to give Arafat
the tools to control the violence. A sharp increase in terrorism thus became
the ‘rationale’ to push for giving Arafat more power more quickly! In The Oslo Syndrome, historian Kenneth Levin
writes: “The Israeli
government’s response to the ongoing violence, and to Arafat’s failure to
fulfill his Oslo obligations vis-à-vis terrorism and his, instead, lending
support to the terrorist organizations, was muted at best and frequently even
protective of Arafat ...The Peace Movement’s supporters in the government,
the dominant voices in [Israeli prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin’s coalition,
had an answer to such questions: more Israeli concessions. …the more terror,
the more the government urged a speeding of the ‘peace process.’”[17] |
• In
bringing • • Anybody
critical of Oslo was loudly equated by the Israeli government and media with
the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as an ‘enemy of peace.’ •
|
||||||||||
|
Shimon Peres To deepen our understanding of the Israeli ruling
elite, it is useful to take a close look at one Israeli politician in
particular: Shimon Peres. Kenneth Levin writes: “…The
government’s policy of hiding incriminating information about Arafat from the
public was dramatically if indirectly illustrated by an episode in 1994 [the
year that the Oslo process was jump-started] when Shimon Peres, conversing
with Arafat at the Erez checkpoint and apparently unaware that his comments
were being recorded by a French filmmaker, threatened to reveal to the media
Arafat’s flouting of his Oslo obligations. Peres did not go into detail about
Arafat’s violations but did regard them as serious enough that their
revelation would be a ‘catastrophe’ for Arafat and would, among its
consequences, ‘kill the Palestinian story in the American Congress.’”[18] This is evidence that Shimon Peres -- in full
knowledge of the facts -- has been covering up Arafat’s terrorism. It is not
evidence of stupidity. Who is this Shimon Peres? He is the great architect
of the Oslo process. It is illuminating briefly to review his career
because you will see that a certain pattern emerges (I will help out by using
italics). Since 1969, Shimon Peres has been a top minister in key positions
in the Israeli government, almost uninterruptedly. In 1969 he was appointed
Minister of Absorption and in 1970 Minister of Transportation and
Communications. In 1974, after a period as Information Minister, he was
appointed Minister of Defense (by Yitzhak Rabin). In 1977 he succeeded Rabin
as Prime Minister and Labor party leader after the latter resigned. Later
that year, Peres led the Labor Party to its first ever electoral defeat
when Menachem Begin won the premiership for Likud. Peres led his Labor
party to another defeat in 1981, but since his party won more seats than
any other in 1984, a coalition government resulted with Peres as prime
minister and Yitzhak Shamir of Likud as foreign minister. After two years,
they traded places, so Peres became foreign minister in 1986. Peres led
his party to another defeat in 1988. But once again there was a coalition
government, and Peres served as Vice Premier and Minister of Finance. He left
the government in 1990 and was again defeated at the polls in 1992,
this time in the Labor primary elections, by Yitzhak Rabin, but Peres became
Rabin’s foreign minister when the latter became prime minister, and then
succeeded him as prime minister after Rabin’s assassination in 1995. Peres
was defeated in the next election by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. In 1997
Ehud Barak replaced Peres as Labor party leader, and upon becoming prime
minister, Barak appointed Peres to the post of minister for regional
development. In 2000 Peres lost his bid to be elected Israeli President
(ceremonial head of state) to Moshe Katsav from Likud. When Ariel Sharon
became prime minister in 2001, Peres was appointed his foreign minister. He
left office briefly in 2003 but then became Sharon’s foreign minister again
in 2004. As HIR has shown,
Shimon Peres was already working hard at undermining the security of the
Jewish state in the 1980s,[20]
and as we see above, he has had sufficient power in Israel’s government all
these years to push through the Oslo process that brought the PLO into the
Jewish state -- quite despite the fact that “Peres has never won a national
election.”[19]
Something is clearly rotten behind the scenes. How does Shimon Peres feel about his fellow
Israelis? “Shimon
Peres...declared with regard to public attitudes and government policy, ‘A
leader must be like a bus driver...He cannot turn his head all the time to
see how the passengers feel.’”[21] Shimon Peres’ metaphor of leadership is ill-chosen,
for a bus driver can hardly take his passengers wherever he thinks
they should go when a majority of these are complaining that they paid for a
ticket to a different destination. Never elected to office, Shimon Peres
obviously thinks like an autocrat: only his views matter. In light of his
preferred policies, perhaps Peres should have said that he is a train
conductor (rushing his unwilling passengers to what he insists will be a
‘work’ camp). |
Shimon Peres “A leader must be like a bus driver... He
cannot turn his head all the time to see how the passengers feel. |
||||||||||
|
Other Israeli
leaders It is important to point out that the corruption in
the Israeli leadership is hardly limited to Shimon Peres and his Labor party. It was, after all, Yitzhak Shamir from Likud who,
under threat from the United States, first assented to the Madrid so-called
‘peace’ talks that became the platform for the Oslo process.[22] After this, Yitzhak Rabin from Labor, steered by the
true controller, his foreign minister Shimon Peres, famously brought the PLO
into Israel. But a majority of Israeli Jews then reacted
rationally to the increased terrorism that followed the entrance of the PLO
into Israel and chose Benjamin Netanyahu -- on a platform that breathed fire
against the Oslo accords -- over Shimon Peres in the election that followed
Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination. But despite that, when Benjamin Netanyahu
became prime minister, he turned around and, under US pressure, pushed
forward the Oslo process with even more energy than his predecessors.[23] When Ehud Barak -- like Shimon Peres, a Laborite --
was elected afterwards, he rushed to give Arafat and the Syrians everything
they wanted, but Arafat, and the Syrian Assad, rejected the offers because
their entire political careers are built on the promise of destroying Israel,
so they find it easier to stay in power by refusing any diplomatic moves that
might create the impression they have recognized the state of Israel.[24] Under a barrage of Arafat-sponsored terrorism, a
majority of Israeli Jews once again reacted rationally and elected Ariel
Sharon on his promises to oppose Oslo. Like Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin
Netanyahu, Sharon was from Likud. But likewise -- under US pressure -- Sharon
turned around and embraced Oslo policies more fiercely than anybody,
cleansing the Jews out of Gaza (and parts of the West Bank), and giving away
this territory to the terrorists, asking in exchange for...nothing at all![25] Sharon’s heir, Ehud Olmert,
from the party that Ariel Sharon recently founded, Kadima, was likewise
rushing to cleanse remaining Jews from the West Bank (thus completing the
total capitulation of Israel to its terrorist enemies) when the war with
Hezbollah interrupted him. Obviously, then, the problem is hardly limited to
Shimon Peres and the Labor party. Every Israeli government since the early
1990s has advanced the PLO’s agenda against the interests -- and against the
wishes, expressed at the polls -- of ordinary Israelis. |
Yitzhak Shamir
Benjamin Netanyahu
Ehud Barak
Ariel Sharon |
||||||||||
|
The Israeli
ruling elite has covered up the German Nazi origins of the PLO In all this, I have not mentioned yet the most
dramatic piece of information kept from the Israeli public by the Israeli
ruling elite. I saved the worst for last. It turns out that Al Fatah, the
controlling core of the PLO, was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was as
important as Adolf Eichman as an architect of Adolf Hitler’s German Nazi
extermination of the European Jews (before that, Hajj Amin had been murdering
very large numbers of innocent Jews with terrorist attacks in British Mandate
‘Palestine,’ and it is precisely this expertise that made him so attractive
to the German Nazis).[26] Again, Israel has an
intelligence service, and it spends millions of shekels a year on it, and
Israeli spies are supposed to be investigating the background of the PLO, so
it is inconceivable that in all these years they could not document something
that I was able to document in two weeks (consult the above footnote). But suppose that -- still -- you wanted desperately
to believe the hypothesis that Israeli leaders were not aware of this easily
documented fact, and thus unwittingly brought the continuation of the
Holocaust into the Jewish state in total innocence. Even under this
hypothesis, it is still impossible to believe that the Israeli government has
been innocent of Al Fatah’s Nazi background since 26 May 2003. Why?
Because on that day Israel National News (Arutz Sheva)
published my first article documenting the Nazi history of Al Fatah,[27] and the Israeli
government keeps very close tabs on what Israel National News
publishes. To get a sense for how closely the Israeli
government monitors Israel National News, consider only that, for
publishing the truth that defends Israel, this media company has been
viciously -- and I do mean viciously -- persecuted by the Israeli government.
To the point that its radio component, Israel National Radio, had to
put its equipment on a ship and broadcast from outside Israel’s territorial
waters because it was barred from doing so inside Israel. I know this sounds
absurd, but it is true, and you may read about that here:
It is obvious, therefore, that since May 2003, the
Israeli government cannot claim to be unaware that the PLO is a continuation
of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, particularly given that a scandal erupted
when I was fired from the University of Pennsylvania for publishing this very
documentation in Israel National News, and given that this scandal was
covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer, FOX TV, and Israel National
News, among other places.[28]
This kind of thing happened to many European academics who defended the Jews
in the prelude to WWII, and it has been happening to many pro-Jewish
academics today (the canary in the coal mine has expired, and the explosion
is coming).[29] No matter. Ariel Sharon pushed through his
Unilateral Disengagement from Gaza after I published the documentation
on Al Fatah’s Nazi background in Israel and was fired from the University of
Pennsylvania for doing so. (By the way, most Israelis are entirely unaware
that their country is being turned over to an extension of the German Nazi
Final Solution, and that the ground is quickly being prepared for the next
great genocide of the Jewish people; if you are an Israeli, or have friends
in Israel, one thing you can do is share
this information.) Now, once the corruption of the Israeli elites is
understood, it is no longer surprising that an article attacking Israel and
defending her terrorist enemies (with blatant fabrications of history) should
have been published -- in the middle of Israel’s defensive war against the
genocidal Hezbollah! -- in a major Israeli newspaper (see here).[30] Particularly when you consider
that the newspaper in question, Ha’aretz, is the “newspaper of
Israel’s elites and the most ideologically driven of the nation’s
nongovernmental media.”[31]
And especially when you consider that the author of this Ha’aretz
article, Gideon Levy, is the former personal aide and spokesperson for Shimon
Peres, chief architect of Oslo.[32] Neither is it surprising, once this context is
understood, that the current Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who failed
to defend the Israelis in this latest war between Israel and Hezbollah, has
now said that “Israel would be willing to discuss the disputed Shebaa Farms
if Lebanon disarms Hizbullah.”[33]
What is Shebaa Farms? It is a territory in the Golan Heights (lost by Syria
after it launched a genocidal war against Israel in 1967[34]) that never belonged to
Lebanon, and in fact the UN has already ruled on this question.[35] Moreover, a publicly available
Pentagon study concluded that Israel will commit suicide if it returns Golan
Heights territory to its genocidal enemies.[36] If Ehud Olmert gives Shebaa
Farms to Lebanon, he is really giving it to Hezbollah’s and Lebanon’s
master, Syria, and what he is giving Syria is a weapon it can use in its next
genocidal war against Israel. So Olmert is rewarding Syria for using
Hezbollah to murder innocent Israelis. Of course, it should go without saying
that Lebanon -- a country that does not exist (for it is really an extension
of Syria) -- will not disarm Hezbollah; but it is a safe bet that, if he can,
Olmert will pretend this did happen so that he can give away --
through ‘Lebanon’ -- a piece of the strategic Golan Heights to the
antisemitic and genocidal Syrian regime. Ehud Olmert hardly behaves like the prime minister
of Israel -- he behaves like Syria’s hired gun. But we’ve been here before: former Israeli prime
minister Ehud Barak offered the Syrians not only the Golan Heights, but even
territory in the Galilee that had always been Israeli! The only reason
this didn’t happen is that the Syrian ruler Hafez Assad refused Barak’s offer
because any deal with Israel would have made him immediately unpopular with
his genocidal Syrian subjects.[24] And Barak’s
policies toward Syria, mind you, were not significantly different from those
of Likud’s Netanyahu right before him, who himself “largely followed his
immediate [Labor] predecessors’ policies, seeking to reach accommodation with
Syria based on Israel’s essentially ceding the entire Golan Heights,” and who
likewise “followed his Labor predecessors in allowing Syria -- for the sake
of keeping illusory possibilities of an agreement ‘alive’ -- to continue to
prosecute its proxy war against Israeli forces in Lebanon [through Hezbollah]
at no cost.”[37] Ehud Olmert will naturally not stop at giving away
Shebaa Farms. As reported on 9 September, “Israel’s
foreign minister said yesterday it was time the Jewish state talked to the
Palestinians, adding no conditions should be put on meeting President Mahmoud
Abbas.”[38] No conditions should be put on meeting President
Mahmoud Abbas, of Al Fatah, whose
organization was created by the top co-architect of the German Nazi Final
Solution, and is therefore constitutionally
pledged to exterminate the Israeli Jews.[39] Is this Israel’s foreign
minister, or the PLO’s foreign minister? Really: Who is the Ehud Olmert cabal working for?
The question is sharpened when you consider that: “[The Israeli]
ambassador to Germany Shimon Stein is pleased that Germany has agreed to
consider Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s request that it send peace-keeping
troops to Lebanon.”[38] Isn’t this perfectly consistent with everything else
that Ehud Olmert does? It is. Especially when you take into account that, in
1956, the US installed in West Germany as the German BND -- the German
equivalent of the CIA -- a group of Nazi war criminals that the US had been
protecting (and using).[40] (The CIA itself had earlier
been created by absorbing tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, as
documented in 1988 by historian Christopher Simpson.[41]) |
Hajj Amin al Husseini
Adolf Hitler • Since
May 2003, •
Ehud Olmert “Israel would be willing to discuss the
disputed Shebaa Farms if Lebanon disarms Hizbullah.
Mahmoud Abbas |
||||||||||
|
Final remarks The above evidence supports the hypothesis that many
in the Israeli ruling elite have been corrupted by the forces that wish to
destroy the Jewish people. If so, this would hardly be the first time, and
therefore if the hypothesis appears surprising this merely betrays ignorance
of history. The phenomenon of “renegade” Jews (as the First and Second
Books of Maccabees call them) allying with the powerful antisemitic enemies
of the Jewish movement is one of the most stable, recurrent features of
Western History. In the ancient Mediterranean, plenty of
‘Hellenizing’ (pro-Greek) Jews in the Jewish ruling elite allied with the
Seleucid Greeks who attempted to obliterate Judaism in the land of Judah, and
who committed one mass slaughter of innocent Jews after another, in addition
to sundry cruelties a great deal worse than murder.[42] Then there were Jews -- once
again Hellenizing Jews in the ruling elite -- who allied with the Roman
effort to exterminate the Jewish people in the first and second centuries
(the most famous case is that of ‘historian’ Flavius Josephus, from a rich,
priestly Jewish family, who assisted the Roman generals Vespasian and Titus
in the genocidal ‘First Jewish War,’ and then wrote much propaganda to excuse
the Roman outrage.)[43]
There were so many traitors in the Jewish upper classes that an entire
movement developed among Jewish patriots to selectively assassinate the
collaborators with the Romans.[43a]
Many upper-class Jewish converts to Christianity
allied with the attacks against the Jews during the Middle Ages.[43b] The same happened in the 19th
c., when the assimilated, upper-class maskilim of what became known as
the ‘Jewish Enlightenment’ allied with the efforts of European governments to
destroy Jewish religious practice.[43c] More recently we have the example of the mainstream
Jewish leaders during WWII in the United States and Britain, who tended to be
‘assimilated’ Jews toward the secular end of Jewish piety and practice, and
who were well-connected with the antisemitic power structures in their home
countries. These well-placed Jewish leaders destroyed a boycott against
Hitler's regime that ordinary Jews around the world had been organizing and
that came within an inch of destroying Nazism in the cradle (see Part 0).[43d] Then, during the Holocaust,
these same Jewish leaders allied with the powerful antisemites whom they
had befriended, and worked to sabotage the efforts of Hillel Kook (alias
Peter Bergson) and his mostly Orthodox Jewish and righteous Gentile (i.e.
non-Jewish) allies, who were trying to rescue the desperate European Jewish
population (see Part 1).[44] Also during the Holocaust, the
leaders of the mainstream Labor Zionist movement who went on to become the
Israeli government and establishment, likewise sabotaged the efforts to
rescue the European Jews; some of them, such as Rudolf Kastner, were in fact
very good friends with the top Nazi exterminators and assisted them in the
killing, later also defending them after the war from the Nuremberg War
Crimes Tribunal (see Part 4).
Even more recently we have the astonishing attacks against the Jewish state
by all manner of prominent mainstream Jewish leaders in the Diaspora (see Part 2).[45] In this context, why should we
be surprised that the largely and fiercely secular Israeli ruling elite, a
continuation of the Labor Zionist movement, is betraying ordinary Israelis?
But we are surprised because we do not study history, and so, as George
Santayana famously said, we are condemned to repeat it. Anybody who insists, however, despite all the above,
that what really propels current Israeli leaders is not treason but the most
astonishing stupidity ever witnessed, will still have to reach the same
conclusion regarding what, in practical terms, is necessary for the
survival of the Jewish state. Why? Because this kind of stupidity is
criminal, and will result in another anti-Jewish genocide, so the Israeli
ruling elite must be kicked out of power. The next question is: Why don’t ordinary Israelis
and Diaspora Jews effectively defend themselves from their own leaders? HIR has begun the attempt to answer this question in
Part 5,
but more is coming.
The next piece in
this series is:
|
Flavius Josephus
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
||||||||||
|
________________________________________________________ Footnotes and Further Reading [1]
“THE CRISIS OF 1933: In 1933, ordinary Jews all over the world banded
together and came within an inch of destroying the Hitler regime. They did
not fail. Their leaders failed them”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE, An HIR series; Historical and Investigative Research; 06 May
2006; by Francisco Gil-White “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the
Jewish people in World War II”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE;
Historical and Investigative Research; 17 January 2006; by Francisco
Gil-White; “The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor
Zionist) Israeli leaders [2]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix) [3]
The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9
says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s
worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same
thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of
killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15
of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist
imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist
presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of
Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other
words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be
‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is
purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” SOURCE: The
PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15,
1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with
Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House
Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [4]
Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel (New York: Knopf, 1979) p. 333 [5]
“WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA? (Part 2): Why does the Israeli media also
attack the Israelis?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 August 2006;
by Francisco Gil-White. [6]
“In 1974, when much of the world was promoting Arab-Israeli negotiations in
the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Yasser Arafat, leader of Fatah and of the
PLO, formulated what he called the ‘Plan of Phases.’ The plan declared that
the Palestinian Arabs would seek to acquire territory by negotiations and
would then use that territory as a launching pad for military pursuit of
Israel’s annihilation. With this agenda as backdrop, Arafat offered to enter
into negotiations with Israel.”
[7]
1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo
process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US
AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [8]
The Baltimore Sun, July 11, 2001 Wednesday, FINAL EDITION, Pg.
1A, 1574 words, Israelis taking darker view of Palestinian intentions;
Many see existence of Jewish state at risk, Mark Matthews. [9] “A
tape-recording has surfaced of PLO leader Yasser Arafat speaking to Moslem
followers in a Johannesburg mosque… Mr Arafat was exhorting his followers to
prosecute a ‘jihad ... to liberate Jerusalem’. Mr Arafat does not deny the
tape’s authenticity, but now says he meant ‘jihad’ in a metaphorical sense. A
verbal jihad. A jihad of ideas. Nothing to do with violence. Mr Arafat’s
effrontery adds insult to injury. In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a
clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive,
integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and
our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long
and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’ So even if Mr
Arafat really did mean ‘jihad’ in this novel, non-violent sense, his legions
of followers would not have picked up the sophisticated nuance. They would
have taken it to mean that the peace process was just a stratagem: a Trojan
Horse which should now be exploited with maximum violence. At best, Mr Arafat
was irresponsible. At worst, deeply dishonest.” SOURCE:
Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words;
HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD [10]
Before 1982 the PLO was using its bases in southern Lebanon to murder Israeli
civilians in the Galilee. In 1982 Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon,
under prime minister Menachem Begin, that chased the PLO out of Lebanon and
forced it to seek asylum in Tunis. The PLO would have been utterly destroyed
if not for the intervention of the United States, which exerted very strong
pressure on Israel to allow the PLO to survive, and then provided a military
escort for the PLO so that it could take refuge safely in Tunis. But though
the PLO managed to survive thanks to the US (and France), it was still
defeated, because from Tunis it was almost impossible for the PLO to murder
Israelis. To read about all this, visit: 1982-1983
-- The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the
Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the
evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [11]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.x) [12]
Here is an example of what the Palestinian Authority drills into the heads of
West Bank and Gaza Arabs, every Friday, when it broadcasts the Islamic
sermons of the mullahs on Palestinian Authority TV: “Oh beloved,
we must be certain that victory will come! Shame and remorse on whoever
refrained from raids [against the enemy] or refrained from preaching to
himself [to raid]!; shame and remorse on whoever refrained from raising his
children on Jihad [holy war]!; shame and remorse on whoever hated his Muslim
brother while loving one of the infidels!; shame and remorse on whoever hid
behind excuses that have no basis with Allah! Blessings to whoever waged
Jihad for the sake of Allah!; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of
Allah!; blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his
sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews crying: ‘Allah Akbar, praise to
Allah!’” MEMRI TV (Middle East Media Research Institute) took
the video off its website. We will post it on HIR as soon as we receive it
from them, so that you can see the mullah saying this. In the meantime, you
may consult other sources for similar documentation. For example, “A story in
the Philadelphia Inquirer in September, 1997, reported the following PA
[Palestinian Authority] broadcast segment: ‘A schoolgirl, perhaps 8 years old
and all nervous giggles, stands before a television camera and sings in a
squeaky voice?: ‘I am a daughter of Palestine…Koran in my right hand, in my
left -- a knife.’ A slightly older girl with her ponytail wrapped in a
checkered kaffiyeh gives an emotional recitation of a poem for Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat: ‘I am finished practicing on the submachine gun of
return…We swear to take vengeful blood from our enemies for our killed and
wounded. We will board a bustling boat with will take us to Jaffa [an Israeli
city].’ The girl approaches Arafat, who plants congratulatory kisses on her
cheeks.” SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome:
Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.407);
Kenneth Levin is citing the following article: Barbara Demick, “Broadcasts’
Warlike Tone Angers Israelis / Listening to a PLO Network,” The
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 7, 1997. [13]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.x) [14]
“...in the fifteen months between Arafat’s establishment in Gaza and the
signing of the next accord, Oslo II (September 28, 1995) another ninety
people were killed in Palestinian attacks. By way of comparison, Palestinian
terror had taken about 400 lives in the twenty-six years from the 1967 war
and Israel’s entry into the territories to the inception of Oslo.” SOURCE: Levin,
K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.346) For greater ease of comparison, this means that
after Arafat’s PLO was brought inside Israel, the rate of terrorist murders
against Israelis by ‘Palestinians’ was equal to 72 people per year. By
contrast, before the PLO was brought in, the rate had been around 15 people
per year. The Oslo process therefore immediately quintupled the
‘Palestinian’ terrorism against the Israelis. [15]
1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the
PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year,
that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS
THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [16]
The following is stated in article 27 of the Hamas Charter: “The
Palestinian Liberation Organization is the closest to the heart of the
Islamic Resistance Movement. It contains the father and the brother, the next
of kin and the friend. The Moslem does not estrange himself from his father,
brother, next of kin or friend. Our homeland is one, our situation is one,
our fate is one an d the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us.” To see how closely Hamas and the PLO have cooperated
in the killing of both Arabs and Jews, visit: 1994 -- Yasser
Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even
though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they
would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN
ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. As for Islamic Jihad, in 1987, it was reported that
Islamic Jihad has “ties to the Fatah wing of the Palestine Liberation
Organization.” SOURCE: United
Press International, October 15, 1987, Thursday, AM cycle, International, 592
words, Suspected Arab guerrillas arrested, By LOUIS TOSCANO, JERUSALEM In fact, it was Islamic Jihad that helped produce
the First Intifada for the PLO, for which read: 1987-1988 --
The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in
West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs’; from “IS THE US AN
ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [17]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.348) [18]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.xi) [19]
Shimon Peres | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [20]
1985 -- Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests; from “IS
THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [21]
SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under
siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.329) [22]
1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo
process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US
AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [23]
The following is taken from: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions
of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.393-411). “The most
significant for Netanyahu of the pressures to resume negotiations despite PA
[Palestinian Authority -- i.e. PLO] non-compliance [i.e. despite PLO
sponsorship of terror attacks against innocent Israelis] were those coming
from domestic sources and from the Clinton Administration. ...Netanyahu
had measures available to him to try and counter both. He could potentially
have used his exceptional oratorical skills to go over the heads of political
foes and even a hostile Israeli media and effectively present the merits of
his positions directly to the Israeli public. In addition, his insistence on
PA compliance enjoyed extensive support in the American Congress... But...on
August 14, 1996, he reentered negotiations with [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat
without having made any headway on the compliance issue. ...[In late
1996] Arafat issued an urgent call to his people to defend the holy sites on
the [Temple] Mount [which were in absolutely no danger], and he succeeded in
triggering widespread rioting, initially in Jerusalem and then elsewhere as
well. In addition, he unleashed his armed forces, including snipers, to
attack Israeli soldiers in what became known in Israel as the ‘Checkpoint
War.’ In the ensuing four days, fifteen Israeli soldiers were shot dead by
Palestinian police and about sixty Palestinians were killed. In the public
relations war that accompanied the battles on the ground, Arafat again bested
Netanyahu as he had done vis-à-vis the resumption of negotiations. The
Israeli left attacked Netanyahu for allegedly having acted provocatively by
opening the tunnel exit [to an excavation near the Temple Mount] and having
thereby triggered the violence. The Israeli media echoed this view. Most
foreign governments and foreign media took the same stance, with many in the
media claiming that Israel had dug a tunnel under the Temple Mount. Again, as
any of their correspondents in Jerusalem could have ascertained for
themselves, Israel had not dug a tunnel nor was the existing tunnel under the
Temple Mount. The Checkpoint
War demonstrated once more Arafat’s continued commitment to using violence
and terror as weapons against Israel. But most observers outside the country,
and indeed half of Israel, chose to ignore this and to continue perceiving
Arafat as Israel’s ‘peace partner.’ ...Netanyahu,
failing to counter effectively the increased pressure on him mounted in the
wake of events around the tunnel opening, responded to the pressure by
reentering negotiations with the PA, briefly terminated in the context of the
fighting, and by agreeing in the ensuing weeks to terms of withdrawal from
Hebron. He did so despite his still not having secured any reversal of the
PA’s pattern of noncompliance with its Oslo obligations. ...The Israeli
army completed its withdrawal from the ceded areas of Hebron within hours of
the Knesset approval of the agreement on January 16. Almost immediately, the
PA initiated harassment of the Jewish enclave in Hebron, with rioting, stone
throwing, firebombing, and gunfire. This continued on and off thereafter. The
[Israeli] government added the events in Hebron to its list of talking points
on the Palestinian Authority’s violations of its Oslo commitments and
frequently reiterated its demand for reciprocity. But it nevertheless went
ahead and offered on March 7 to hand over another 9.1 percent of West Bank
territory to the Palestinians as the first of those ‘further deployments’
called for in the Interim Agreement. ...Also during
this time, additional incidents of violence, in many instances perpetrated by
Palestinian ‘police,’ including terrorist attacks initiated by Palestinian
armed forces, added further to the violations invoked by the Netanyahu
government in its demands for Palestinian compliance. Among such incidents
were the murder of another thirty-eight Israelis, injury of hundreds more,
many aborted terrorist attacks, and myriad stonings, firebombings, and acts
of arson. ...In January,
1998, the Cabinet unanimously passed a resolution linking further
redeployment [i.e. further handing of territory to the PLO’s PA] to PA
fulfillment of commitments made or reiterated as part of the Hebron
agreement. But...Israel’s
political opposition and media continued to urge [Netanyahu’s] government to
move forward with territorial concessions, to advance the ‘process,’ and the
[so-called] Peace Movement held rallies protesting the government’s alleged
foot-dragging. To the degree that the government’s arguments regarding
Palestinian non-compliance and the importance of reciprocity were noted at
all, they were characterized as ploys being used by Netanyahu to obstruct
‘progress.’ …the Clinton
Administration...effectively rejected Netanyahu’s demands for reciprocity.
Indeed, it not only pushed Israel to proceed with territorial concessions
without Palestinian compliance but insisted that the next round of
territorial concessions exceed the dimensions proposed by the Israelis in
March, 1997. Early in 1998, the State Department came up with the figure of
13 percent as the proper size of the next West Bank withdrawal, based not on
any consideration of Israel’s strategic position and defense needs but simply
on the fact that an additional 13 percent would place the nice round number
of 40 percent of the West Bank under Arafat’s control. In effect, the
administration reneged both on its formal endorsement of the reciprocity
principle in the ‘Note for the Record’ and on its acknowledgment at the time
of the Hebron accord that Israel had the right to determine the dimensions of
the further interim redeployments. Once more,
there appear to have been steps that Netanyahu could have taken to counter
both domestic and American circles that were undermining his stance on
Palestinian noncompliance. At home, he could have done more to go over the
heads of the opposition parties, the media, and even elements of his
fractious coalition who did not fully share his jaundiced views of Oslo. he
could have addressed the Israeli public [which public, after all, had elected
him to office on an anti-Oslo platform] more directly and more forcefully on
the dangers posed by Palestinian policies and evasions. ...When
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in the spring of 1998, imperiously,
and with veiled threats, summoned Netanyahu to Washington to finalize a 13
percent withdrawal plan, Netanyahu chose to remain at home. In response to
this confrontation, many members of Congress publicly and forcefully sided
with Netanyahu... ...But
[Netanyahu] failed in both the domestic and American arenas to utilize
effectively the resources available to him. Domestically, the pressures for
more unilateral Israeli concessions persisted unchecked. With the United
States, Netanyahu simply yielded and acceded in October, 1998, to attending a
summit with Arafat and Clinton at Wye Plantation in order to hammer out a
redeployment agreement that was obviously to be based on the American
proposals of Israel ceding, an additional 13 percent of the West Bank.
...[Netanyahu ] capitulated, and in doing so not only failed to make
effective use of congressional backing but undercut those in Congress who
most firmly supported him and had most vociferously argued, with Netanyahu,
that a withdrawal of the dimensions prescribed by the administration, at
least under current circumstances, posed too great a threat to Israel.” [24]
Imediately below, Barak’s offers to the Syrians (his offers to the PLO are
below the offers to the Syrians): “With regard
to Syria, Barak essentially followed the path of his three predecessors, soon
making clear that he was prepared to return the entire Golan to Syrian
sovereignty in exchange for ‘peace.’ He apparently did so, again, like his
predecessors, with the full expectation that Assad would ultimately accept
Israel’s offer... In December,
1999, Barak began American-mediated negotiations with Syrian foreign minister
Farouk al-Shara in Washington. The talks ended without a breakthrough, but
over the following weeks Israel continued to pursue a Syrian agreement. The
major territorial point of contention, according to news leaks, was whether
Israel, in descending from the entire Golan, would withdraw only to the
international border or, as Syria demanded, also leave those areas along the
Sea of Galilee that Syria had seized [from Israel by force] prior to the 1967
war and that Israel had then retaken [in the war]. Even many
supporters of Oslo and of the return of the Golan to Syria balked at Assad’s
demand for more. They did so in part for pragmatic reasons, in particular
because the additional territory potentially to be ceded, by extending Syrian
control to the shores of Galilee, would present critical difficulties such as
compromising this key resource of Israel’s water supply. But there were also
issues of principle. The Arabs were demanding the return of all territory
taken by force of arms and yet they were in this instance insisting that
Syria be given territory it had taken by force of arms prior to the 1967 war.
Nevertheless Barak, with the support of most of his government, indicated a
readiness for additional concessions. Still, the
Syrians would not budge, even refusing to resume direct negotiations. In
February, 2000, President Clinton met with Syrian President Assad in Geneva
to test Assad’s intention and effect what he anticipated would be a major
breakthrough. In the event, Assad indicated that he was unprepared for a full
peace with Israel no matter how forthcoming Barak was on ceding territory... [Just a few
months earlier,] Syria’s state-controlled media [had been running] several
stories with anti-Semitic themes. One such, in late November [1999],
regurgitated the blood libel, the claim that Jews use blood of gentiles for
their religious rituals, which was also the theme of a popular book by
Syria’s defense minister, Mustafa Tlas (The Matzah of Zion, 1984). An
editorial in late January [2000] in Syria’s leading newspaper, Tishreen, a
mouthpiece for the Assad regime, focused on denial of the Holocaust while
insisting that Israeli policies are worse than those of the Nazis...
[Barak’s] most notable comment regarding the Syrian government during this
period was his characterization of Assad as a ‘courageous leader’ (November
9, 1999).” SOURCE: Levin,
K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH:
Smith and Kraus. (pp.415-416) On Barak’s offers to the PLO: “Barak…floated
the idea of moving directly to final status negotiations, and reports
surfaced in the media of secret talks between the parties in which the
Israelis indicated the extent of the territorial concessions they were
prepared to make as part of a final agreement. Those concessions, according
to the reports, encompassed more and more territory as the weeks passed and
soon far exceeded what any of the military commentators thought feasible from
a strategic perspective, even in the context of a genuine peace. However, the
fact that [architect of the Oslo accords] Yossi Beilin, Justice minister in
the Barak government, was one of the Israelis allegedly engaged in these
talks lent credence to media claims of wholesale territorial concessions, as
such a negotiating stance seemed to conform to the territorial offers Beilin
had apparently made to the Palestinians during the previous Labor-Meretz
government. News leaks triggered rising anticipation of the country again
being presented with a Labor-Meretz fait accompli. These reports
of secret talks were surfacing against a background of information that one
might have thought would have given the government pause in its proffering of
additional concessions. Intelligence assessments provided to Barak in the
preceding months informed him that the intensity of Palestinian incitement
was increasing and was having an impact in stoking anti-Israel sentiment not
only in the territories but also among Israeli Arabs and throughout the Arab
states. Moreover, intelligence reports spoke of seeing this sentiment already
being translated into increased violence in the territories and within
Israel. Barak chose essentially to ignore the import of these assessments,
remain silent on the incitement, and press on for an agreement. In March,
2000, the Foreign Ministry did issue a bulletin expressing concern over
increased anti-Israel ‘incitement, hostility, and demonization,’ much of it
with anti-Semitic content, emanating from official state media in the Arab
world, including official Egyptian media. But the government did not
consistently press its concerns, nor did it amend policy in response to this
dangerous development. Also in 2000,
media monitoring organizations such as Middle East Media Research Institute
[MEMRI] and Palestinian Media Watch reported on anti-Semitism and
delegitimization of Israel not only in Palestinian media and in statements by
PA officials but also in the new curriculum and textbooks introduced by the
Palestinian Authority for the 2000-2001 school year. For example, Jews are
mentioned in the new texts almost exclusively in negative, derogatory terms,
and maps consistently omit Israel, depicting all of the land between the
Jordan and the Mediterranean as ‘Palestine.’ But this latest chapter of the campaign
waged in Palestinian classrooms against Israel and the Jews had no impact on
the government’s pattern of ignoring Palestinian incitement and violence and
pushing ahead with offers of concessions in exchange for ‘peace.’ Despite
Barak’s blandishments, however, Arafat, according to media reports, was
balking at concluding a final status agreement. Some argued he was holding
out for yet more concessions; and various Israelis aligned with the Peace
Movement, including members of the government, urged Barak to provide those
concessions. But as Arafat made clear in speeches to his own constituency and
the wider Arab world and in his actions, he was not interested in signing any
final accord. …Seeing Arafat
continuing to balk despite all his blandishments, and expecting that
sufficient pressure from Clinton would change Arafat’s stance, Barak began to
urge on Clinton a three-way summit to conclude a final settlement. …As additional
leaks emerged of what Barak was offering Arafat in the pre-summit meetings,
elements of Barak’s coalition began to abandon the government. …The rapidly
declining support at home for his government, and in particular the very
meager public backing for the wholesale concessions he was evidently prepared
to make, did not inhibit Barak. He went to Camp David and put on the table,
according to what could be gleaned from media reports (there was no official
revelation of the proposed Israeli concessions), the transfer of about 95
percent of the West Bank, as well as all of Gaza, to Palestinian sovereignty.
This included the Jordan Valley and other territory long deemed vital to
Israel’s security and survival, as well as parts of Jerusalem, among them
sections of the Old City and perhaps even the Temple Mount… The summit
continued for seventeen days. But, despite the dimensions of the Israeli
offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He
apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to
sign an agreement that declared itself final and foreswore any further
Palestinian claims.” SOURCE:
SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.419-422) [25]
2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one
who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter
Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.; from “IS THE US AN ALLY
OF ISRAEL?: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE”; Historical and
Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [26]
“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the
German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT;
Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [27]
“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian
Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco
J. Gil-White [28]
You may examine the documentation relevant to my firing from the University
of Pennsylvania here: [29]
The problem, so eerily reminiscent of the 1930s prelude to anti-Jewish
genocide, has become so acute, that more than one organization has been
formed to monitor repression against people who speak in favor of the Jews on
US campuses. For example, Campus Watch. [30]
“WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA? (Part 2): Why does the Israeli media also
attack the Israelis?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 August 2006;
by Francisco Gil-White. [31] The Oslo syndrome (p.404) [32]
“Gideon Levy, Shimon Peres’s former personal aide and one-time Labor Partys
pokesman.” SOURCE: Honig, Sarah. “Brains in deep freeze.” The
Jerusalem Post, Pg. 8B. Friday, October 20, 2000. [33] UN
force takes over as Israel lifts sea blockade, The Irish Times,
September 9, 2006 Saturday, WORLD; Other World Stories; Pg. 10, 633 words,
Nadim Ladki in Beirut [34]
1967 -- After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to
relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to
Israeli defense; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT
THE EVIDENCE”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [35]
“The Shebaa Farms lie at the borders of Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Israel has
occupied it since winning it from Syria in the six-day war of 1967. The UN
has ruled that the land belonged to Syria, but a majority of Lebanese claim
it as their own, including Hizbollah, who use Israel’s occupation of the area
as the logic behind their maintenance of armed militia.” SOURCE:
Israelis exchange fire with Hezbollah in disputed area, The Independent
(London), February 4, 2006 Saturday, Second Edition, NEWS; Pg. 26, 475
words, By Hugh Macleod in Shebaa, south Lebanon To learn more about the phony ‘Lebanese’ claim to
Shebaa Farms, see “What is the supposed grievance against Israel?” in the
following piece: “WHO ATTACKED
ISRAEL?: Hezbollah has a master”; Historical and Investigative Research; 21
July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [36]
The following piece quotes the relevant portions of the Pentagon study and
analyses it in its political context, with links to the original document (to
go directly to the Pentagon study, see further below):
< PENTAGON
STUDY: »»
This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published
until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
»»
And by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: »»
And as an appendix in:
[37]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.411) [38] UN
force takes over as Israel lifts sea blockade, The Irish Times,
September 9, 2006 Saturday, WORLD; Other World Stories; Pg. 10, 633 words,
Nadim Ladki in Beirut [39]
The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9
says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s
worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same
thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of
killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15
of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist
imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist
presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of
Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other
words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be
‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is
purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” SOURCE: The
PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15,
1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with
Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House
Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [40]
The US installation of Nazi war criminals as the post-war German intelligence
service is documented in the following HIR piece: “THE CIA
PROTECTED ADOLF EICHMANN, ARCHITECT OF THE HOLOCAUST: Has the US ruling elite
been pushing a pro-Nazi policy?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 8
June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. Here below is the relevant excerpt (but consult the
above piece for the footnoted documentation):
[41]
Simpson, C. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects
on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. To read more about this, visit: 1945 -- After
1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi
war criminals; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT
THE EVIDENCE”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [42] To
learn about this episode, consult chapter 7 of:
[43] To
understand the political context of this genocide, read chapter 1 of:
[43a] It is common to hear
disparagement of the ancient sicarii was supposed 'terrorists,' but
that is not what they were. The sicarii did not murder innocent
people. On the contrary: they murdered members of the Jewish ruling class who
assisted the Romans in their terrorist violence against innocent Jews. They
were careful to target only the guilty, for they were self-consciously
ethical. The evidence we have of their activities is mostly from Josephus,
their enemy, and this evidence makes them look very good. The following excerpts are from: Horsley, R. A.
1979. The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish "Terrorists". The journal of
religion 59:435-458. “The Sicarii
emerged in Jerusalem during the 50s. They received their name from the
weapons they used, that is, ‘daggers resembling the scimitars of the Persians
in size, but curved and more like the weapons called by the Romans sicae’ (The
Jewish Antiquities [herafter cited as Ant.] 20.186).
Josephus's accounts of this distinctive group are both precise and
consistent. … Especially
during the festivals they would mingle with the crowd, carrying short daggers
concealed under their clothing, with which they stabbed their enemies. Then
when they fell, the murderers would join in the cries of indignation and,
through this plausible behavior, avoided discovery. The first to be
assassinated by them was Jonathan the High Priest. After his death, there
were numerous daily murders. [BJ (Bellum Judaicum -- The Jewish War)
2.254-561].” -- p.436 “The strategy
of the Sicarii was apparently focused on the Jewish ruling groups, the
sacerdotal aristocracy, the royal family, and other notables. This is only to
be expected in a rationally calculated strategy; for in Jewish Palestine, as
elsewhere in the empire, the Romans ruled largely through the upper classes
who collaborated in the imperial system.” -- p.445 “In a second
and closely related tactic the Sicarii extended their activities from
Jerusalem into the countryside where the estates of the pro-Roman gentry were
located, eliminating the Jewish notables and destroying their property.” --
p.440 [43b] Under violent pressure from
the Catholic Church, many Jews converted to Christianity during the Middle
Ages. “These new converts were extremely zealous in their efforts to return
to their former co-religionists and to convince them of newly discovered
truths” (Chazan 1977:829). Some of these new converts became leaders of the
Catholic repression against the Jews, a famous example being Pablo Cristiani,
responsible for reviving the famous yellow star that Jews were forced to
wear, and for policies of forcing Jews to hear Christian sermons in France
(Roth 1950:143, fn. 41). It was another Jewish convert to Christianity who
instigated the great burning of the Talmud that took place in Paris in 1243
(Schechter 1892:82). SOURCES:
[43c] Consult the section entitled
“The push for Jewish assimilation in the 19th century” in the piece:
[43d] “THE CRISIS OF 1933: In 1933,
ordinary Jews all over the world banded together and came within an inch of
destroying the Hitler regime. They did not fail. Their leaders failed them”;
from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE, An HIR series; Historical and
Investigative Research; 06 May 2006; by Francisco Gil-White [44]
“How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War
II”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE; Historical and Investigative
Research; 17 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White [45]
“How mainstream Diaspora Jewish leaders are failing the Jewish people today”;
from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE; Historical and Investigative
Research; 22 March 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. |
|
||||||||||
