Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Monday, October 31, 2022

We have seen that surveys over the past few years have found that between 3%-6%  of American Jews identify themselves as "generally not pro-Israel," a much more general term than "anti-Zionist" which has not been asked as a question of American Jews.

This means that the percentage of American Jews who actively identify as anti-Zionist (a much higher bar than "generally not pro-Israel") is diminishingly small - certainly less than than 6% but probably far less than that number, perhaps as low as 1-2%.

Yet anti-Israel Jews like to present themselves as a large minority with huge influence in the Jewish community. The strenuously argue that they are not fringe, but mainstream - even though they have little evidence of it. 

What I'm about to say is definitely comparing apples and oranges, but the comparison is still worthwhile.

In the four most recent Israeli Knesset elections, between 12% and 28% of Israeli Arabs voted for Jewish Zionist parties. 

In the last election, 5.2% of the Arab vote went to Likud, and 3.2%  to Yisrael Beiteinu. The rest were divided up between Meretz (3.8%) and a remaining 8% divided among other Jewish parties.

In the North, about 25% of Arab voters voted for Jewish parties; in the Jerusalem areas, it was more than one third.




 
If Arabs have it so bad in Israel, why are so many voting for Jewish Zionist parties?

The Arab vote for Jewish Zionist parties is definitely not fringe. However, it is a phenomenon that is simply not reported in stories about Israel. You would be forgiven for assuming that they are a tiny, anomalous minority.

Other polls show that more than half of Israeli Arabs consider themselves "proud citizens" of the state. (I have not seen a poll on how many identify as Zionist.)

Meanwhile, the Jewish anti-Zionists - who really are fringe compared to American Jewry as a whole - gain a great deal of media attention, as if they have far more adherents than they really do.

As is often the case, media coverage does not reflect the truth, but wishful thinking to make reality closer to what they want it to be.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, October 27, 2022

From Ian:

Bassam Tawil: How Americans, Europeans Embolden Palestinian Terrorism
Instead of assuming its responsibility for halting terrorist attacks from areas under its control, the Palestinians continue to violate the agreements they signed with Israel.

In the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority did not take real measures to stop Hamas from building a massive terrorism infrastructure. Hamas later used its weapons arsenal not only to attack Israel, but also to overthrow the PA regime and seize full control of the Gaza Strip.

The same scenario is now being repeated in the West Bank, specifically in areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas's security forces.

This is the twisted logic of the Palestinian leadership: Instead of denouncing the terrorists for targeting Israelis, as they have officially and repeatedly committed to doing, they lash out at Israel for defending itself against the current wave of terrorism.

When a senior Palestinian official such as Habbash says that the terrorists are entitled to carry out "resistance" attacks, he is actually telling them to continue targeting Israelis. Such statements are not only a violation of the agreements the Palestinians signed with Israel, but also incitement to launch more terrorist attacks against Israelis.

The Palestinian leadership, in a policy is known as "pay-for-slay," already provides monthly stipends to Palestinian terrorists..... The families of the Nablus terrorists will also presumably benefit from these payments.

The Palestinian leadership's endorsement and glorification of terrorism comes as no surprise. What is surprising – and intensely disturbing – is that those foreign governments that are providing financial and political aid to the Palestinian Authority, especially the Americans and the Europeans, are not calling out Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership for their public support of terrorism and their ongoing breach of the agreements they voluntarily signed with Israel.

"We will not resort to weapons, we will not resort to violence," Abbas declared in his last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, "we will not resort to terrorism, we will fight terrorism." His words were directed to the international community, not to his own people.

The silence of the Americans and Europeans toward the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinian leaders is tantamount to a green light to the Lions' Den and other terrorists to continue their terrorist attacks.

If the Biden administration and the Europeans believe that Abbas or any other Palestinian leader is going to stop a terrorist from murdering Jews, they are engaging in staggering self-deception.


Jonathan Tobin: Republicans must defund the UN and stop appeasement of Iran
While the U.N. as a whole is an ongoing disgrace, last week’s report of the HRC’s Commission of Inquiry on Israel has highlighted the issue of the world body’s anti-Semitism. The HRC can’t be reformed. The only proper response is to do everything possible to shut it down and to punish those of its officials who are responsible for its trafficking in blatant Jew-hatred and its efforts to isolate and destroy the one Jewish state on the planet.

While some find it hard to work up much indignation against the U.N., or regard efforts to rein it as tilting against windmills, the Commission of Inquiry’s effort to aid the destruction of Israel illustrates how dangerous it can be. Indeed, documents like this report are useful tools for the spread of anti-Semitism via the BDS movement and to those wishing to aid the likes of Iran and its terrorist allies, which seek Israel’s extinction. While the administration opposed the Commission’s report, it isn’t prepared to hold those responsible for this outrage by withdrawing from or defunding the HRC.

It’s up to Republicans to pass legislation defunding the HRC and the Commission of Inquiry. More than that, the House, with the backing of Senate Republicans, must use its leverage over the funding of the State Department to ensure that the administration doesn’t find a way to evade restrictions in this realm.

That will require a degree of intestinal fortitude that past GOP congressional leaders have lacked. But what must be understood about this is that by refusing to use its fiscal power, the DC establishment has stood by while this administration uses taxpayer dollars to enable the U.N. to spread anti-Semitism.

If the GOP is serious about stopping Biden’s toxic policies, it can’t waste precious time on rhetorical exercises. 2023 must be the year this comes to an end.

Thursday, October 13, 2022

From Ian:

Yeah, Buoy!!!
The government’s new pitch was that this would be the real benefit of the deal: preserving and enhancing Israel’s security interests through the now-famous buoy line. Barak Ravid, the local Israeli journalistic mouthpiece of the Obama-Biden policy team from the Iran deal days, relayed that government officials who briefed reporters on the deal said that anchoring the “line of buoys” was “very important” because “in the last 20 years the Israeli military operated along this line unilaterally and the Lebanese side had international legitimacy to challenge it.” The deal, however, “will allow Israel to treat it as its northern territorial border.”

In other words, in the two decades up to this moment, Israel has had total freedom to operate in the area to ensure its security against Hezbollah. However, without the deal, the terror pseudo-state to its north would suddenly have enjoyed “international legitimacy” to challenge Israel. That sounds very serious—and certainly warrants ceding territory with potential energy resources under threat of force to a terrorist group that is stockpiling and pointing tens of thousands of rockets at you.

Needless to say, the Lebanese side disagrees with the Israeli reading. Instead, it claims another point on land farther south at Naqoura. Squaring this circle, probably with some creative language, is what the U.S. mediator likely has been busy figuring out.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz was spit-balling another set of talkers: “This is an agreement whose essence is economic,” Gantz said last week. “And if it is signed, we, as well as Lebanon and its citizens, who are suffering from a severe crisis, will enjoy it for years to come.” The logic here was that if Lebanon gets its rig in its Block 9 opposite Israel’s rig at Karish, then Hezbollah will have a stake in maintaining calm and smooth operation of both rigs. So, in the future, if Hezbollah attacks Israeli energy infrastructure, Israel can target a gas rig owned and operated by France’s Total—putting France on Hezbollah’s side.

This pretense of hard security and pseudo-deterrence posture rang even more hollow as it clashed with another key government talker: that Israel had to conclude this awful deal ASAP if it wanted to avoid a new war with Hezbollah. An IDF official sent out to make this pitch put it this way: “There is an urgency and a necessity to reach an agreement in the near future and without delay, in order to prevent an escalation of security [dangers], which is [otherwise] highly likely, and to utilize the unique window of opportunity to reach an agreement.”

The logic here was itself unique in the annals of deterrence: If your psychopathic neighbor keeps slashing the tires on your shiny Mercedes, the solution is to buy him a spanking brand-new Mercedes of his own that you can then pretend to hold hostage.

The source of this weird pitch was again the Biden administration. As a senior U.S. administration official relayed through Ravid, the reason Biden wanted Lapid to wrap up the deal within weeks was “because the issue has become urgent and the lack of an agreement could lead to dangerous consequences for the region.”

Yet when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that he was troubled by how the Biden administration “pressured our Israeli allies” into a comically terrible deal, the Washington arm of the Obama-Biden messaging machine sprang into action. The progressive lobbying group J Street put out a brief that “fact checked” Sen. Cruz’s ignorant partisanship. Daniel Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who is intimately familiar with the communications environment in Israel, weighed in, regurgitating the same exact talkers and asserting that it was “definitely NOT” American pressure that pushed Israel into this deal.

Yet the reason the Biden administration announced that a gas deal was a key priority was precisely because it’s a deal with Hezbollah. Stabilizing and investing in Iranian regional “equities” is at the core of the Obama-Biden doctrine of realignment with Iran. It’s how you achieve “regional integration”—by publicly showcasing your ability to pressure your allies to prop up Iranian assets, even as the Iranian people are being mowed down in the streets.
How to Lose Friends and Influence Over People
Americans have a reputation, with others and in their own national literature, for being careless and breaking things. Often this is because they are so admirably creative, dynamic, and unattached to the past. But for the last two decades, the epicenter of American carelessness has been the Middle East, an area of the world that seems to encourage fantasies among all Westerners, yet where real-world margins for error are small. The result has been a series of disasters for the peoples of the region and for American prestige. This week brought what looks like another unforced error in policymaking, fed by hubris, fantasy, airy talk, and a refusal to acknowledge reality.

On Tuesday, White House national security spokesman John Kirby announced that President Joe Biden will be reevaluating America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia after OPEC+ announced the previous week that it would cut oil production. Kirby’s announcement followed a statement by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., claiming that Saudi Arabia is helping to “underwrite Putin’s war” through OPEC+. “As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Menendez said, “I will not green-light any cooperation with Riyadh until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine.”

As a Saudi who loves the United States, and believes deeply that our two countries need each other, the only word that comes to mind regarding the contemporary “reevaluation” of our relations is: obscene.

It was the Obama administration that decided to give Vladimir Putin a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean, which it sold to the American people as a way to “deescalate” the civil war in Syria. As the United States romanced Putin, offering him Crimea and warm water ports in Syria in exchange for pulling Iran’s irons out of the fire over the past decade, U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel have had no choice but to cope. Last month, while Russian-operated Iranian drones and missiles were pounding Kyiv, Riyadh used its diplomatic leverage to obtain the release of American and British POWs from Putin.

America saddled us with the reality of a neighboring country controlled by Iranian troops and the Russian air force. Worse, as part of its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama administration sent tens of billions of dollars flowing into Iranian coffers—money that was used to demolish Iraq, crush Syria, create chaos in Lebanon, and threaten Saudi territory from Yemen. Iranian rocket and drone strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia are now routine. In response to the barrage of missiles on Saudi infrastructure last year, the Biden administration withdrew U.S. missile defense batteries from Saudi territory.

Having watched Russian forces support or directly commit atrocities against innocent civilians and facilitate the use of chemical weapons for seven years in Syria, the Saudi government was quick to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Unlike many in the West, who expected a short, parade-ground war, the Saudis understood full well what Putin was capable of. So did the Israelis.
Why Jerusalem Is the Right Location for the UK's Embassy
Up until 1948, the world generally referred to "Palestinians" as the Jews who lived in what was to become modern Israel. The "Palestinian" flag until 1948 contained a Magen David, the Palestine Post was the region's Jewish newspaper and Palestinian football teams comprised Jews.

Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Old City and eastern Jerusalem by the invading Jordanian and Arab armies in 1948. Jews were the majority of the population of the Old City. Synagogues were desecrated and destroyed and the vibrant Jewish community erased. The Jewish neighborhood of Simon HaTsadik (Simon the Just) became the Muslim area of Sheikh Jarrah.

The default position for the location of an embassy is a country's capital city, and it is for the country itself to decide its location. Israel has declared that Jerusalem is its capital city and this must be respected. The UK already has a consulate in eastern Jerusalem to serve the local Arab communities. Why, therefore, should there not be an embassy in Jerusalem to serve Israeli citizens?

The Abraham Accords and the immense benefits for the region flowing from them has shown that the relocation of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem has had no adverse effect. Neither would the relocation of the British embassy.

Monday, October 03, 2022

Under the Obama administration, virtually all mentions of "Jerusalem, Israel" were scrubbed from the State Department websites, and the city became merely "Jerusalem" - without a country attached.

This was fixed during the Trump administration when the US Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, but last year I found some indications that the policy was regressing back towards the Obama-era policy of not recognizing that Jerusalem was in Israel. 

Here is some more evidence that things are going backwards.

The form to get visa services allows you to choose a country and then it lists what cities there are consulates and embassies. Here's what it says for Israel:


Tel Aviv is the only city in Israel. If you want services from the US Embassy for Israel in Jerusalem, you must choose the non-existent country of Jerusalem:


It looks like the State Department never updated the address of the Embassy to say what country it was in.


From what I can tell, according to the State Department, the US Embassy to Israel is in Jerusalem, but the "US Embassy Jerusalem" is not in Israel. 

This should be clarified.

(h/t Avi)



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, September 30, 2022

By Martin Ostrow 


Ken Burns’s advance interviews for his new Holocaust film provided much material for public discussion. Now that PBS has broadcast the six-hour series, how does the film measure up?

The answer, unfortunately, is that it’s a disappointment. “The U.S. and the Holocaust” misrepresents some key historical issues and entirely omits crucial information. Ultimately, Ken and his producer partners, Sarah Botstein and Lynn Novick, have failed to deliver the kind of film that we would have expected, given their track record. 

I write not as a historian, but as the producer and director of a previous PBS film on America’s response to the Holocaust, “America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference,” which first aired in 1994. 

Inevitably, both my film and Ken’s cover some of the same ground. We both describe the context in which America’s response to the Holocaust evolved, such as the racism, isolationism, and antisemitism in the United States in the 1930s. Ken handles those themes and the unfolding of the Nazi genocide quite well, worthy moments of Holocaust education.

It is one thing, however, to acknowledge the disturbing trends in public and congressional opinion in those days; it is another to make it seem as if President Franklin D. Roosevelt was captive to them, as Ken does. FDR, after all, was a masterful leader. When he cared about an issue, he knew how to fight for it. But he made no real effort concerning the plight of Jewish refugees, not even to let them stay temporarily in a U.S. territory such as the Virgin Islands.

One might argue that Ken’s series is so broad and complex that it’s easy to lose Roosevelt in its massive story. Perhaps that was his intention. Ken certainly has the skill to render his subjects with vivid three-dimensional effect. Yet in this vast work, FDR is at times ghost-like—a hapless, impotent figure. The film offers excuses for the president’s inaction and shifts almost all the blame to Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long. Viewers could easily forget who actually hired Long, and who could have fired him if he had wanted to. Long served at the pleasure of the president, not the other way around.

It's a shame the series brings nothing new to understanding Roosevelt’s troubling decisions and motivations. Ken had a major advantage in making this new film. He could have drawn on significant information scholars have uncovered in the past two decades about FDR and America’s response to the Holocaust. I’m puzzled and disappointed he did not.  For example:

— FDR’s Private Feelings About Jews. Historians have uncovered more than a dozen private statements made by Roosevelt in which he disparaged “Jewish blood,” advocated quotas on Jews in various professions (and college admissions), and even accused the publishers of the New York Times of using a “dirty Jewish trick” to gain a tax advantage. While President Roosevelt’s private feelings about Jews may or may not offer a clue to his policies concerning Jewish refugees, they at least need to be part of the conversation. Yet they are not mentioned in the film.

— The James McDonald Diaries. The discovery of the diaries of the late refugee advocate and diplomat James G. McDonald shed new light on his efforts to help the Jews—and the refusal of the Roosevelt administration to assist him. Remarkably, McDonald is not even mentioned in the film.

— The George McGovern Interview. In a revealing 2004 interview with filmmakers Chaim Hecht and Stuart Erdheim, George McGovern, the former senator and presidential nominee, recounted his experiences as a World War II pilot who bombed the oil factories in the slave labor section of Auschwitz. McGovern’s eyewitness recollections about the feasibility of bombing the railways leading to the camp tell us much more than Ken’s commentators, who offer confusing speculations about why neither the railways nor the gas chambers were ever bombed.

Admittedly, a disadvantage Ken suffered was that in the decades since my film, some of the remaining principal figures in the story passed away. For example, unlike Ken, I had the opportunity to personally interview John Pehle, the first director of the War Refugee Board. 

Recalling the British-American conference on refugees held in remote Bermuda in 1943, Pehle told me it was “a conference set up to not accomplish anything, and the people who represented the United States there were given those instructions.”  Yet the Bermuda meeting, a crucial event in the history of the U.S. response to the Holocaust, was not even mentioned by Ken. 

Regarding the failure to bomb Auschwitz, Pehle says in my film, “After we recommended to the War Department that the extermination facilities at Auschwitz be bombed, we were told [that] this would involve bombers being sent from England…and therefore, it was not possible to do this. Later, perhaps after the war, we discovered at the very time we were recommending this, bombing all around Auschwitz was going on from Italy, and we had been misled.” Pehle’s powerful words should have been in Ken’s film. They are not.

As with every Ken Burns film, "The U.S. and the Holocaust” includes affecting cinematography, touching moments, and memorable music--although the decision to appropriate the precise Bach violin concerto passage from the most poignant moment of my film, is certainly questionable. 

But the film's strengths do not make up for the fact that this Burns production stumbles when it comes to the most important parts of the historical record. Ken promised "The U.S. and the Holocaust" would answer many of the lingering questions about our nation’s response to the Nazi genocide. But after watching all six-plus hours of the film, I can only imagine that many people are still asking the same questions. They certainly should be.

[Martin Ostrow has been an award-winning documentary producer, writer and director for public, commercial and cable television for more than 30 years.]



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, September 20, 2022




On October 6, 1943, a group of hundreds of Orthodox rabbis came to Washington DC to plead for the lives of their brethren in Europe.

They presented a letter to Vice President Wallace asking for a government agency to help save the remaining Jews from the Holocaust. The letter demanded that the US open its doors to Jewish refugees, that the UN create a passport that could be used for Jews to travel, and for Britain to "open the doors of Palestine."

Some of the details about this trip are outrageous. 

Dressed in long, dark rabbinic attire, the rabbis walked from Union Station to the Capitol Building. There, Rabbis Eliezer Silver, Israel Rosenberg and Bernhard Louis Levinthal led a recitation of Psalms. Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), who was head of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, introduced them to Vice President Henry Wallace and a number of Congressmen.

Bergson enlisted the rabbis and the American Jewish Legion of Veterans for the march. He expected American clergy would join, but none did. Only the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada, the Union of Hassidic Rabbis and a commander of the Jewish Legion participated. The modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America sent Rabbi David Silver, Rabbi Eliezer Silver’s son.

White House adviser Judge Samuel Rosenman told the president that those “behind this petition” were “not representative of the most thoughtful elements in Jewry.” The “leading Jews” Rosenman knew opposed the march, but he admitted failing to “keep the horde from storming Washington.”

A number of Jewish congressmen had attempted to dissuade the rabbis from marching. This backfired when Congressman Sol Bloom, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that “It would be undignified for these un-American looking rabbis to appear in the nation’s capital.”

At the Lincoln Memorial, the rabbis—who had declared a fast day—prayed for the welfare of the armed forces and the Jews of Europe and a quick Allied victory. Then they walked to the White House and prayed outside the gates. Though they expected to meet with the President, they were told he was unavailable. Later they learned he went to Bolling Field Air Force Base for a minor ceremony to avoid meeting them.
The era’s most prominent American Jewish leader, Rabbi Stephen Wise, criticized the march in somewhat similar terms. Wise, who headed the American Jewish Congress, the World Jewish Congress, and the American Zionist movement, wrote that “the orthodox rabbinical parade [ sic]” was a “painful and even lamentable exhibition.” He derided the organizers as “stuntists” and accused them of offending “the dignity of [the Jewish] people.”
The oh-so-dignified Jews were aghast that Orthodox rabbis would make a scene while pleading for the lives of Jews in Europe.  

And these self-appointed leaders were dead wrong. They thought that since they had their own access to corridors of power, they had influence in those corridors. In fact, Roosevelt didn't want to meet the rabbis specifically because he didn't want to be pressured to help save the Jewish refugees from Europe. FDR knew the power of public pressure. (His schedule that afternoon was remarkably open.) 


The vice president issued a vague, meaningless statement of support meant to get rid of these strange Jews.

And there was a more than a little self-hating from the American secular Jews in this event, as these supposed defenders of Jews in America did not want to be associated with people who looked like their grandfathers did. The Orthodox embarrassed them. Public tears to help save millions of lives is not the image they want Americans to see. 

They thought of themselves as superior, at having left their visible Judaism behind. And their conceit that they are better, and know better, than other Jews, indirectly resulted in more European Jews being murdered.

It is the same conceit that kept the daily attacks on Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn out of the news cycle for so long.






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, September 08, 2022

Axios reports:
Israel on Wednesday rejected the U.S. call for it to review the Israel Defense Forces' rules of engagement in the West Bank as part of accountability steps for the killing of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said on Tuesday that the Biden administration will continue to press Israel “to closely review its policies and practices on rules of engagement” of the IDF in the occupied West Bank.

He said this is needed in order “to mitigate the risk of civilian harm, protect journalists and prevent similar tragedies."

 Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid expressed "sorrow" over Abu Akleh's death on Wednesday but said "no one will dictate our rules of engagement to us, when we are the ones fighting for our lives."

Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that the "IDF’s chief of the general staff, and he alone, determines, and will continue to determine the rules of engagement in accordance with our operational needs and values of the IDF."

"These instructions are implemented in a strict manner by soldiers and their commanders. There has not been, and there will not be any political involvement in the matter," Gantz said.
Is the US in a position to lecture Israel about rules of engagement and protecting journalists in wartime?

Based on statistics from the US occupation of Iraq, not at all. 

No less than 13 journalists were killed by US troops in Iraq from March 2003 to August 2005, according to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists. 

The details show a pattern of apparent recklessness and impunity that is worse than anything Israel has ever done, with investigations either finding no fault, or not released, or not done to begin with. 

Some details:

Tareq Ayyoub, Al-Jazeera, April 8, 2003, Baghdad
: Ayyoub, a Jordanian working with the Qatar-based satellite channel Al-Jazeera, was killed when a U.S. missile struck the station’s Baghdad bureau. U.S. Central Command (Centcom) said that U.S. forces were responding to enemy fire in the area and that the Al-Jazeera journalists were caught in the crossfire. Al-Jazeera correspondents deny that any fire came from their building, (and) Al-Jazeera officials pointed out that the U.S. military had been given the bureau’s coordinates weeks before the war began. In October 2003, six months after the bombing, a U.S. military spokesman acknowledged to CPJ that no investigation into the incident was ever launched

Taras Protsyuk, Reuters, and José Couso, Telecinco April 8, 2003, Baghdad died after a U.S. tank fired a shell at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad where most foreign journalists were based during the war. Directly after the attack, Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, confirmed that a single shell had been fired at the hotel from a tank in response to what he said was rocket and small arms fire from the building. Journalists at the hotel deny that any gunfire came from the building. A CPJ report concluded that the shelling of the hotel, while not deliberate, was avoidable since U.S. commanders knew that journalists were in the hotel and were intent on not hitting it.  On August 12, 2003, U.S. Central Command (Centcom) issued a news release summarizing the results of its investigation into the incident. The report concluded that the tank unit that opened fire on the hotel did so “in a proportionate and justifiably measured response.” It called the shelling “fully in accordance with the Rules of Engagement.”

Mazen Dana, Reuters, August 17, 2003, was killed by machine-gun fire from a U.S. tank while filming near Abu Ghraib Prison, outside Baghdad, in the afternoon. The soldier in the tank who fired on Dana did so without warning, while the journalist filmed the vehicle approaching him from about 55 yards (50 meters). U.S. military officials said the soldier who opened fire mistook Dana’s camera for a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher. There was no fighting in the area, and the journalists had been operating near the prison with the knowledge of U.S. troops at the prison gates. On September 22, the U.S. military announced that it had concluded its investigation into the incident. A spokesman for Centcom in Iraq told CPJ that while Dana’s killing was “regrettable,” the soldier “acted within the rules of engagement.”

Ali Abdel Aziz and Ali al-Khatib, Al-Arabiya, March 18, 2004, were shot dead near a U.S. military checkpoint in Baghdad. The crew arrived at the scene in two vehicles and parked about 110 to 165 yards (100 to 150 meters) from a checkpoint near the hotel. Technician Mohamed Abdel Hafez said that he, Abdel Aziz, and al-Khatib approached the soldiers on foot and spoke with them for a few minutes but were told they could not proceed. As the three men prepared to depart, the electricity in the area went out and a car driven by an elderly man approached U.S. troops, crashing into a small metal barrier near a military vehicle at the checkpoint. Abdel Hafez said that as the crew pulled away from the scene, one of their vehicles was struck by gunfire from the direction of the U.S. troops. Abdel Hafez said he witnessed two or three U.S. soldiers firing but was not sure at whom they were firing. He said there had been no other gunfire in the area at the time. A statement posted on the Combined Joint Task Forces 7’s Web site expressed “regret” for the deaths and said the investigation determined that the incident was an “accidental shooting.” Press reports quoted U.S. military officials saying that the soldiers who had opened fire acted within the “rules of engagement.”

Asaad Kadhim, Al-Iraqiya TV, April 19, 2004 and his driver, Hussein Saleh, were killed by gunfire from U.S. forces near a checkpoint close to the Iraqi city of Samara. On April 20, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said that coalition forces at the checkpoint signaled the journalists to stop by firing several warning shots. When the vehicle ignored those shots, Kimmitt said, forces fired at the car. Cameraman Kamel told the AP that no warning shots had been fired at their vehicle. It is unclear whether an investigation was conducted and what its outcome was.

 Maha Ibrahim,  a news producer for the Iraqi television station Baghdad TV, was shot and killed by U.S. forces fire in Baghdad as she drove to work, June 25, 2005.  Staff at the Baghdad TV station said Ibrahim’s car was hit by what they described as random fire from U.S. troops who were attempting to disperse people from a road along which they were traveling. On June 29, 2005, CPJ called on U.S. military authorities to launch an immediate inquiry into the shooting death. It is unclear whether an investigation was conducted or what its outcome was.

Ahmed Wael Bakri, a director and news producer for Al-Sharqiyah, was killed by gunfire as he approached U.S. troops June 28, 2005 according to Ali Hanoon, a station director. Hanoon said Bakri was driving from work to his in-laws’ home in southern Baghdad at the time. U.S. soldiers fired at his car 15 times, and Bakri died later at Yarmouk Hospital, he said. The Associated Press, citing another colleague and a doctor who treated the journalist, reported that Bakri had failed to pull over for a U.S. convoy while trying to pass a traffic accident. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement of condolence to the family and the station, the BBC reported. “We were deeply saddened and hurt by Mr. Wael al-Bakri’s death and as is the case with incidents of unintentional killing, the investigation is ongoing and we are trying our best to find out the details of the accident,” the statement said. It is unclear whether an investigation was conducted or what its outcome was.

Waleed Khaled, a soundman for Reuters, was shot by U.S. forces several times in the face and chest as he drove with cameraman Haidar Kadhem.  Four days later the U.S. military confirmed its troops had killed Khaled. On September 1, the U.S. military in Iraq announced that the unit involved in the shooting of Khaled had concluded its investigation and that troops’ response was “appropriate,” Reuters reported. According to Reuters, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said that Khaled’s car “approached at a high rate of speed and then conducted activity that in itself was suspicious. There were individuals hanging outside with what looked to be a weapon. It stopped and immediately put itself in reverse. Again suspicious activity. Our soldiers on the scene used established rules of engagement and all the training received … (and they) decided that it was appropriate to engage that particular car. And as a result of that the driver was indeed killed and the passenger was hurt by shards of glass.”An army spokesman told Reuters that the report was not formally completed and was not available for release.
That is a lot of journalists killed, most of them while the US was following its own rules of engagement. Have those rules been reviewed by an independent investigation? 

I'm not saying that the US rules of engagement are inadequate. Some of the incidents appear to be very problematic. But those rules are certainly are not more stringent than Israel's. 

It is insolent for the US to demand Israel review its policies without showing any proof that the US has something to teach Israel about walking the line between the safety of its soldiers and the safety of civilians. On the contrary - the US sends its own experts to Israel to learn how to minimize civilian casualties during battles, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has praised Israel for not only that but also for adjusting and learning from experience to always do a better job. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, September 06, 2022




Later this month, Ken Burns is releasing a documentary, The US and the Holocaust, on how the United States did not help Jews escape their doom. 

Here is one example of how some Americans thought on the eve of the Holocaust. 

William Bruckart was a moderately successful and influential columnist in the 1930s, who published a regular syndicated column called Washington Digest.

In December 1938, only ten months before World War II would break out and when there were no longer any illusions about Hitler's attacks on Jews, he wrote about how terrible Hitler was - but sympathy for German Jews was not enough reason for the US to allow Jews to immigrate.

Danger of 'Jewish Problem' for United States in German 'Purge' 

Opening of Gates to Refugees Might Introduce Disturbing Influence. 
By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNU Service, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON. — Press service wires and cables and radio from abroad have been clogged for several weeks with hundreds of thousands of words about the plight of the Jews in Germany; about the abuses visited upon the Jewish race by the European madman, Hitler, and his camp followers; about the humanitarian pleas of our own President, Mr. Roosevelt, for appeasement of the conditions. There has been what I believe to be one of the greatest waves of emotion, waves of resentful national sentiment, that this country ever has known. I recall none like it, none as overwhelming, none as deep-seated as that through which we have been passing, and in my opinion our nation should have resented such outrages. 

While no one with a heart can fail to grieve to a greater or less extent about the indescribable harshness, the unforgivable meanness of Hitler, it occurs to me that we should begin to temper these waves of emotion somewhat. There are other factors to be considered, factors and consequences of the thing that is now called "the Jewish problem," that require calm reasoning. In other words, let us say that America is and must remain for Americans, and charity, while it is sweet, cannot be exploited, or carried to extremes simply because we feel a sadness for a group upon whom an injustice has been sent. Like millions of other Americans, I am hopeful that some way will be found to aid the Jews who are being driven out of Germany, but I am unwilling that we, as a nation, shall create additional and unwarranted difficulties for ourselves by extending a helping hand. Therefore, the United States must not be the goat. 

It is one thing to render aid. It is quite another thing to inject into our own bloodstream of national life additional elements without knowing what those elements are. After all, the damage is something that we did not cause; the injured are a people who have no knowledge of our way of doing things and may never cooperate with us, and we must prevent being dragged into the other fellow's fist fight. 

I suppose there are very few persons in the United States who do not believe that Hitler's "purge" of German Jews constitutes a blot upon modern civilization. I know that leading Germans in the United States wish there were ways and means to stop the action. There can be no defense of the outright seizure of $400,000,000 of money from the Jews of Germany under the guise of a "fine" although there is a lesson of warning in it. ...
....
 The unwanted race is simply the victim and a knowledge of how its members have had the sufferings brought upon them adds little or nothing to the search for a method to protect their lives. Where are they to go? That is the real question. Hitler doesn't care where they go or what happens to them. Some one else has to lead the way. Our nation has joined in that leadership, and rightly so. But we have policies and principles and traditions which must be respected. If, in our eagerness to help the German Jews, we should transgress those established principles, then we, as well as the Jews, will have to pay a penalty.....

We ought not kid ourselves. There are many persons swearing allegiance to the United States who do not like Jews. Those persons may be otherwise good citizens, but they distrust a Jew because he is a Jew, making no distinction between individuals. It is stating nothing new to say that there has been almost a steady undercurrent of criticism of Mr. Roosevelt from certain quarters because Jews have been given prominent places in the New Deal. I think it is not stretching the imagination at all, therefore, to point to the Jewish problem as one that may become involved in politics at some future time, although I hope it never does. 

Mr. Roosevelt has proposed removal of some of the immigration restrictions as a means of bringing into this country more German Jews than our immigration laws now permit. In so doing, he verged on politics himself. Any one familiar with the debates on immigration policies in the early 1920s must recall the severity of that battle. The issue was whether we, as a nation, were going to be haven for all corners and just hope that they would do things the American way, or whether we should restrict the number coming here to live to a number which could be absorbed into our national life. Labor unions and most employers favored the restrictions, and when we think of the number of unemployed in the last five or six years—people fed and clothed by the federal government—it appears that we allowed too many to come in. It seems we could have excluded all of them to advantage. 

Behind the scenes of the immigration restriction also was a determination on the part of Senator David A. Reed of Pennsylvania, then a senate power, to prevent introduction into the United States of all kinds of "isms." The senator foresaw the spread of radicalism by means of entry of the European backwash and rubbish. There was not much discussion of this phase because our government did not want to offend any foreign nation. It was a basic reason, however, and it is too bad that it was not given more public consideration. 

Fortunately, there can be no change in the number of foreigners admitted from any nation without action by congress. The United States can take only so many—something like 30,000 a year—of those purged Jews, unless congress amends the law. And when I say it is fortunate that there must be action by congress before there can be a change in policy, I mean no inferences. 

In consideration of whether we ought to let a deluge of refugees enter, I cannot help thinking of a possible spread of trouble. For example, if our definite national position of protest against Hitler's policies should bring retaliation, every Jewish refugee allowed in this country would be clamoring for the United States to take revenge on Germany and Hitler. Their influence would be great because they could tell what happened to them and give an idea of what is happening. 

As far as relations between Germany and the United States are concerned at the moment, all that can be said is that the United States has let the world know of its disapproval. When Ambassador Wilson was recalled, it was just the same as saying to the world of nations that Uncle Sam hasn't any respect for Hitler.
Bruckart isn't an antisemite - no, he really cares about the Jews in Europe. He feels very bad about them. He hopes nothing bad will happen to them, even though it is already happening. 

But doing anything to save them? That's un-American.

His mention of Senator David Reed refers to one of the architects of the 1924 Immigration Act which was designed to limit immigration to the US, especially of Jews and Asians. There was an element of Nazi-style eugenics in that law: northern Europeans were considered more wanted and healthier than those from central and southern Europe, where most Jews were attempting to immigrate from. It reduced Jewish immigration by about 90%.

This article assumes that there were desirable immigrants and undesirable ones - and Jews were definitely on the undesirable side of the equation. Moreover, it implies that the many Jewish immigrants who had come to the US in the early part of the century were still not real Americans, and that they were radicals.

That next to last paragraph is something. Bruckart is saying that Jews who arrive in America would tell the truth about how the Nazis act, and it would be bad for "real" Americans to hear the truth because it might prompt them to do something to stop it. 

I was curious whether Bruckart would have continued his isolationist position after Pearl Harbor, but we'll never know - he died suddenly of a heart attack in 1940 at age 48.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, August 14, 2022



The Arc of a Covenant is a well-researched book about the history of the US-Israel relationship. And it destroys many myths in the process.

Most books about the US and Israel are written by one of two kinds of people: Zionists and anti-Zionists. Both of those suffer from a skewed vision where the American Zionists and Israeli politicians are considered critical players in the drama. 

Walter Russell Mead calls the anti-Zionists who believe in a nefarious and outsized role of Jews in steering the US towards a disaster in foreign policy "Vulcanists." In the late 1800s, astronomers noticed irregularities in the orbit of the planet Mercury, and postulated that there was a hidden planet they called Vulcan that could explain them. Some claimed to have observed the planet. In the end, the irregularities were found to be because of the sun's gravity bending the fabric of space under Einstein's theories, but they didn't have a clue - they convinced themselves that there was a fictional planet. They couldn't even imagine that there was an alternate theory that could explain things better.

The field of research into the US-Israel relationship is likewise skewed, according to Mead, by writers who are convinced that Jews have been at the center of the decision-making. The entire book zooms out from this tunnel vision and looks more fully at history and sees that US (and other countries) made their decisions about Palestine and Israel based on their specific political circumstances at the time, and the Jews (or Zionist lobby, or Christian Zionists) were only a small component of what went into national decisions.

The centerpiece is an analysis of Harry Truman and what went into his policies towards Palestine. Mead notes that Truman was very unpopular in his own party after FDR's death - he was reluctantly chosen as a vice presidential candidate to help Roosevelt get elected in 1944 - and that Truman had a great deal on his plate: political pressure from the Left, including from the very popular former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a State Department that disagreed with Truman's ideas, a war-depleted Great Britain that wanted to hold onto some Middle East oil fields to help regain money and power, a devastated Europe that needed to be helped without the danger of a new menace arising, and a Soviet Union that had been an ally and looked to be becoming an enemy again, but which many American Leftists preferred to Britain. Truman needed to balance these with many domestic concerns and his own weakness as President. 

The Jewish lobby, and keeping Jews happy, was very far down on his priority list.

Mead busts myths right and left - for example, he notes that the State Department's opposition to a Jewish state was more out of concern that the Jews would certainly lose any war and there would be a new Jewish humanitarian and refugee crisis than any pro-Arab tilt. And he also destroys the myth the Harry Truman's meeting with Chaim Weizmann arranged by his old business partner, Eddie Jacobson, was critical in changing Truman's mind about the Jewish state - it notes that the US announced it opposition to the partition plan a day after that meeting in March 1948. Mead notes that Weizmann may have convinced Truman that the Jewish forces were better armed and prepared than the State Department thought, so the meeting may have had an effect, but this was not the Queen Esther moment that Zionist sources like to portray it as. 

The entire book is this way - looking at all the factors that went into decisions, some of which were far afield from the Middle East itself.

Mead is scrupulously unbiased and hardly a right wing Zionist (he supports a two state solution and is very  sympathetic to Palestinian Arabs). The overriding theme of the book is that Jews have not been as critical in important decisions as the many books written by Zionists and Vulcanists have implied. Sometimes the context that Mead adds to an episode goes on for tens of pages; in this sense this is almost a general history of American foreign relations and the different streams of thought behind it. 

Even though the role of Jews in this history is far more limited than had been previously assumed, to me the story is no less remarkable. On the contrary.

Four years ago, I gave a lecture at a Queens synagogue for Yom Haatzmaut. Given the venue, instead of concentrating on the facts as I do in this site, I spoke about the miracles behind Israel's rebirth - the improbable coincidences that set the stage for the English speaking Christian world to be interested in Jewish return to Israel, the improbable set of circumstances that led to the Balfour Declaration, and the almost unexplainable turn of the Soviet Union toward Zionism in exactly the time period of 1947 and 1948 when it mattered most (a topic Mead goes into here.)  To me, seeing the intricate sets of circumstances that all happened to converge to US and Soviet support of Israel when it was most needed is more incredible than any story about Jewish genius that could have helped bring it about.

The book is long, and the necessary context is at times lengthy. I was surprised that the biggest crisis in US-Israel relations, the 1956 Sinai war, is barely described.  But Arc of a Covenant is an essential and important book that explains the history of the US-Israel relationship - through Donald Trump - much better than any other I've seen. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 


Thursday, July 28, 2022

The New York Police Department Hate Crimes Dashboard has been updated through the second quarter of the year, and once again anti-Jewish hate crimes dominate them all.

Here is the word chart showing the relative number of hate crimes for April, May and June:


When it comes to only counting more serious felonies, not misdemeanors, the dominance of anti-Jewish hate crimes is even starker:


For the first half of the year (until June 28,) 150 of 338 hate crimes in New York City were against Jews - over 44%.But when it comes to felonies, about 57% of them were against Jews. 

This must be what "Jewish privilege" means.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 24, 2022


Last week, AIPAC-backed Glenn Ivey defeated J-Street candidate Donna Edwards for the Democratic nomination for Maryland’s 4th Congressional District.

J-Street's backing of Edwards should put to rest the lie that J-Street is in any way pro-Israel.

The Washington Examiner summed up Edwards' congressional record on Israel:

During Edwards's first year in the House, she voted "present" on a resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza." And Edwards voted present on a resolution expressing support for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. She also voted present on 2012 legislation to enhance security cooperation between the United States and Israel. All three measures passed with overwhelming majorities, at times when Democrats and, later, Republicans were running the House.
J-Street pretends to be pro-Israel, but it supports someone who cannot even vote that Israel has the right to defend itself? Or that there should be direct Israel-Palestinian negotiations? 

Clearly, Edwards is an outlier in her hate for Israel compared to most members of Congress.

J-Street cannot credibly claim to be pro-Israel in any context if this was the candidate that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2022


By Daled Amos


President Biden likes to recount his face-to-face confrontations with world leaders and how he gave them a piece of his mind.

Biden says that just this past week, he gave Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a tongue lashing that he will not soon forget:

President Biden said he confronted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) directly Friday about the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, telling him in a “straightforward and direct” way that the killing was unacceptable and “making clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now.”

The crown prince, who is the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, “basically said that he was not personally responsible for it,” Biden recounted. “I indicated that I thought he was.”

That account is from The Washington Post, which then goes on to quote Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the US, who confirmed that Biden did in fact bring up Khashoggi's murder, though not in as confrontational a way as Biden claimed:

It was candid, it was honest, it was open. And what I found profoundly refreshing is the president said, "I just need to be clear and direct with you," and the crown prince said, "I welcome you being clear, candid and direct, because that’s the way that we move forward.”

But Fox News quotes the Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir that Biden did not bring up the topic of Khashoggi at all:

"I didn't hear that particular phrase," al-Jubeir said. "The President mentioned that the US is committed to human rights because since the founding fathers wrote the constitution and he also made the point that American presidents -- this is part of the agenda of every American president."

So -- did Biden directly confront MBS face-to-face on Khashoggi's murder or not?

Writing for The New York Times, Peter Baker writes about Biden's collection of stories about how he has confronted dictators

Mr. Biden is by nature a storyteller with a penchant for embellishment. He has often told the story of meeting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in 2011 as vice president and telling him, “I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul.” Others present at the time had no memory of that specific exchange.

Mr. Biden has similarly described an unvarnished confrontation in 1993 with Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian nationalist leader who unleashed an ethnic war in the Balkans. “I think you’re a damn war criminal and you should be tried as one,” Mr. Biden, then a senator, related having told Mr. Milosevic, according to a 2007 memoir, “Promises to Keep.” Some other people in the room later said they did not recall that line.

Mr. Biden likes presenting himself as standing up to dictators and crooked figures. Another favorite story stemmed from a meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan in 2008, when the Afghan leader denied that his government was awash in corruption. Mr. Biden said he grew so irritated that he threw down his napkin, declared, “This dinner is over,” and stormed out. 

Often, others in the room for such sessions say that some version of what Mr. Biden has described did take place, only not with quite as much camera-ready theatricality.

So when he claims he did not hear Biden berate MBS to the degree the president claims, al-Jubeir is in good company.

Actually, Baker may have forgotten an example.

Here is Biden speaking at the Foreign Affairs Issue Launch on January 23, 2018, talking about his time as vice president when he warned that he would cut off $1 billion in aid to Ukraine:

And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b***h. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. [emphasis added]

Here too, all we have is Biden's account of events -- and Biden is actually being modest about the pressure he put on Ukraine. According to Tablet Magazine, a highly placed source confirmed that it was also Biden who pressured Ukraine into voting 'yes' on UN Resolution 2334 which declared that Jewish settlements in the West Bank (including the Old City of Jerusalem) were in violation of international law.

But in fact, we have an example on the record when Biden actually did angrily confront a world leader -- Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel.

The Begin Center Diary blog has the full text of an article in The Jerusalem Post by Moshe Zak, written on March 13, 1992, describing how Biden, when he was a Senator, lost his temper with Israeli PM Menachem Begin during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? 

We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us." [emphasis added]

But ironically, in this case, where there is a clear example of Biden giving an ultimatum to a world leader, Biden himself is eager to deny that it ever happened. Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post writes:

Back 1982, Senator Biden (D-Delaware) threatened to cut off aid to Israel. In subsequent years he hotly denied this but Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s late right-hand man Yechiel Kadisha’i unequivocally confirmed Biden’s bullying in many conversations we held. [emphasis added]

News reports at the time seem to confirm the ultimatum. On June 23, 1982, The New York Times reported Mood Is 'Angry' As Begin Meets Panel Of Senate

The bitterest exchange was said to have been between Mr. Begin and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, who told the Israeli leader that he was not critical of the Lebanon operation but felt that Israel had to halt the policy of establishing new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy. [emphasis added]

There is no mention of threats from Biden about the settlements, just anger. According to this account in The New York Times, instead of threatening to take action, Biden was warning Begin about the prospect that Israel would lose support in the US.  

But on the very next day, on June 24, The New York Times reported further details:

Reporting on his meetings with the members of Congress, Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank. The senator is reported to have been Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware. [emphasis added]

So which was it: did Biden warn that Israel was facing the prospect of losing support or was Biden threatening that he, himself, would see to it that aid would be cut off?

Time Magazine also recounts the confrontation between Biden and Begin:

Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, jabbing his finger at Begin, warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles! [emphasis added]

The Time Magazine account allows for the possibility that Biden was not actually warning that he would cut aid. He was pointing out that US opposition to the settlements could lead to the loss of US support. Begin saw Biden's comments, made in anger, as an ultimatum to cut aid.

Begin's own account of what happened also seems to indicate that Biden's "threat" was less than explicit. Yisrael Medad quotes on his blog My Right Word the now-deleted page from the website of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which gives Begin's own account of the incident in his own words:

He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid.

There is no record of what Biden actually said, but even according to Begin there was no explicit threat. But whatever Biden said, it apparently hinted that more than just an erosion of support was at stake. And that Biden himself could have a role in it.

So to recap:

o  Moshe Zak article: Biden "threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel."

o  The New York Times (June 23, 1982): Biden "said Israel was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy."

o  The New York Times: (June 24, 1982): "Mr. Begin said one of the senators had threatened to cut off aid if Israel continued creating settlements in the West Bank."

o  Time Magazine: Biden "warned that U.S. support for Israel was eroding. Begin shouted back: "Don't threaten us with cutting off aid to give up our principles!"

o  Menachem Begin: "He [Biden] hinted - more than hinted - that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid. And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid."

Even according to the Moshe Zak article, which seems to be the main source usually cited, the warning was that the US would cut off aid -- not that Biden would personally see to it.

Even according to Begin's personal account, whatever it was that Biden specifically said, it only hinted at the loss of aid -- it was not an explicit threat.

According to Time Magazine, whatever Biden said about the erosion of US support led Begin to understand it as a threat and call it that on the spot in front of everyone.

Based on The New York Times article from June 24, it seems that reports of the "threat" are based on Begin's account to the media.

Whatever actually happened, Biden could have responded immediately when it was clear that Begin understood what he said as an ultimatum. He could have assured Begin in from of everyone that he was not making any threat. Biden did not do that. Nor did he seem to respond immediately in the press to Begin's account of what happened.

Without a transcript of what transpired, there is no way to be sure what exactly Biden said, whether it was said as an ultimatum, and what exactly he was warning would happen. But it does seem possible that under the pressure of the moment, Begin responded to something that was not an explicit threat.

Which is not surprising.

As Moshe Zak himself pointed out:

And not only with Carter, but at all his meetings with heads of state and government, Begin customarily replied with direct, frank words against anything he perceived as harming Israel's interests or honor. [emphasis added]






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive