On Monday, July 22, 1946, the Irgun set off an explosion that destroyed part of the King David Hotel used by the British military, killing 91 people and injuring 46.
King David Hotel after the explosion. Public Domain
An article in The New York Times in 1981 reported on a reunion of some of those involved in the attack. It gives background on what led to the attack, noting that the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi all endorsed the plan:
They were provoked by a British Army action against Jewish leaders and settlements on June 29, 1946. On that ''Black Saturday'' about 25,000 troops smashed into homes and kibbutzim, arresting 2,500 Jews and confiscating weapons.
''One search party marched into the dining hall at Givat Brenner shouting 'Heil Hitler!' Mr. Clarke wrote. ''Another party scrawled red swastikas on the walls of the settlement's classrooms. While searching the Bank Hapoalim in Tel Aviv, a British officer shouted at one of the clerks, 'What you need is the gas chamber!'''
This 4-minute excerpt from the documentary "Pillar of Fire" gives more background, both on what led to the bombing of The King David Hotel and the conflicting stories on whether there was any warning given:
The attack and its severity have come to be accepted as proof that Menachem Begin and his followers were terrorists, no better than Palestinian terrorists. In 2006, historian Tom Segev went so far as to write:
The terror attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was in its day the equivalent of the Twin Towers.
In his rebuttal of Segev, Yisrael Medad - an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - notices a couple of significant differences:
No civilian casualties were intended.
No suicide mission was planned.
Specifically:
There was a telephoned warning. It was received. Flash grenades and a petard were set off. Phone calls from within the hotel from a signals officer who witnessed the shooting of a British Major were made to three separate security stations. The British troops on the roof opened fire for a few minutes on the escaping Irgun soldiers. Nothing set off alarm bells but we do have testimonies that the Brits all thought it was a bluff. [emphasis added]
One of those testimonies comes from Adina Hay-Nissan, who at the time was a teenage girl with the job of calling in the warning. At the reunion, she recalled that she called up the British command that was stationed in the hotel and warned them, ''This is the Hebrew resistance uprising. We planted bombs in the hotel. Please vacate it immediately. See, we warned you.''
As your Lordships know, I am against terrorism of any kind and for any purpose. But I think we must be fair. I was informed that on a radio interview Mr. Begin a few days ago explained the line that his friends took when he said that under no circumstances did they plan attacks on women, children or civilians.
I think the House is entitled to know some facts that I came across in the course of some professional inquiries I have been making in respect of what happened at the time of the King David Hotel incident. I came across them not very long ago; I am saying this with the consent both of the people who have been in touch with me and also of the doctor concerned. I want to wipe away the suggestion that no warning was given. I propose to read a letter from a Dr. Crawford in Bournemouth. I quote:
"It was very kind of you to phone me today and I sat down at once to write to you".
I met Dr. Crawford at another venture of Israel which is well known to many people—the Magem [sic] David, which is the Shield of David Ambulance and Health Services. I happened to meet him at a conference held in Bournemouth. Casually he told me that he knew something about this.
He says in his letter:
Further to our recent conversation in Bournemouth, I am writing to confirm that the officer"— he spoke about an officer whose name, I am sure, is known to those who were in Palestine— who wrote to me in 1946 concerning the King David Hotel 'incident' was Major-General Dudley Sheridan Skelton, CB, DSO, FRCS, formerly DGMS in India, Hon Physician to HM The King and to HE the Viceroy of India. He retired from the forces about 1937"— I think that it is of great importance that this attack should be properly and effectively met— when he was given the rank of Brigadier and was ADMS in the SE Command. It was in this area that I met him in the course of my duties as Assistant Medical Director of the Emergency Medical Services Hospital at Preston Hall Sanatorium, Maidstone, and I worked with him until my transfer to Bournemouth as Medical Superintendent of Douglas House Sanatorium in 1943, but we remained in contact with each other for some years. In 1946, he was head of a hospital in Palestine near Jerusalem and was a frequent visitor to the King David Hotel; apparently he was there on the very day of the explosion and he wrote me that 'a warning' was passed on to the officers in the bar in rather jocular terms, implying it was 'Jewish terrorist bluff'. But despite advice to 'ignore the bluff' he decided to leave and thus was out of the hotel when the explosion took place. I kept his letter for many years, but unfortunately, after the death of my wife in 1970 and my own severe illness in 1971, I sold my house and went into a flat and because of limited space I unwisely threw away a lot of my accumulated papers and correspondence, so the letter is no longer available; and Brigadier Skelton has long since died. I hope these facts will be of some help to you. Many of my friends knew this story at the time but few have survived; my sister-in-law will remember it clearly as she was friendly with the Brigadier and lived with us at the time. If you think it worth-while, I could contact her" [emphasis added]
— I did ask him to contact her and she wrote a letter confirming what Dr. Crawford said.
As your Lordships are well aware, I do not approve of terrorists of any kind. The Prime Minister of Israel explained a few days ago what happened and I hope that the letter I have read out now will, in all fairness, answer the accusation that has been made about this incident. I am very grateful for the attention the House has given me...
In his book, Harouvi reveals some interesting facts: First, the CID had intelligence showing the Hotel as a possible target for attack by the Irgun in December 1945 – 6 months prior to the attack. The CID asked to raise security in the hotel, including putting armed soldiers at the 'Regence' restaurant at the entrance of the hotel. The Chief Secretary refused to consider these suggestions, with the justification that there were not many places for recreation and fun in Palestine, and he did not want to foreclose another. He continued to refuse to take action (or even to pass on the information to the High Commissioner of Palestine) when the CID approached him again with newer information on the attack plan (the CID had the plan of attack, but did not know exactly when it would be carried out).
Second, another fact that is not common knowledge is that the Irgun carried out a diversion bombing minutes after the bombs were planted in the King David Hotel, in which a wagon with explosives was blown outside shops next to the hotel. The CID's assessment was that this second bombing (which broke windows, but did not hurt anyone) was intended to cause panic and encourage evacuation of the building. One of the CID officers Harouvi interviewed for his book flatly blames Shaw for the death of so many, since he could have evacuated the building on time (pages 293-297).
This photo, described by Wikimedia Commons as "the explosion of a second bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem," could be a photo of the first bomb that served as the diversion.
There were claims that Shaw not only knew about the warning but deliberately refused to act on it. Nothing was ever proved. In 1948 both a newspaper and a book repeated the accusation -- and in both cases were forced to retract and apologized because of lack of proof. Begin repeated the accusation in his book "The Revolt," but Shaw did not sue him on the advice of lawyers that since Begin did not refer to him by name but instead to a "high official" there was not enough basis for a claim of personal defamation.
Here is a letter to The Jerusalem Post, indicating that warning was given, while also supporting Shaw's claim that there was never any warning. [Hat tip: Yisrael Medad]
Yet years later, neither the letter that Lord Janner read, back in 1979, nor the other facts about the advance warning and possible negligence by the British themselves have made a dent in the efforts of those who want to tar Menachem Begin as a terrorist on a par with the Palestinian terrorists who target unarmed men, women and children.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
I showed recently how, according to a New Yorker article, President Obama was "shocked" by maps shown to him by the State Department that were essentially identical to the Oslo maps of 1995 ans interpreted them as if Israel was taking more and more land.
The State Department employee credited with what can now be seen to be a deception was Frank Lowenstein, and Times of Israel interviewed him. What he says about that map proves that he knew he was being deceptive.
Lowenstein told The Times of Israel that he’d long been aware of the reality in the West Bank, but had been unable to fully explain it to his superiors until the sixth year of Obama’s presidency when he came across a series of maps that showed how 60 percent of the land beyond the Green Line had become off-limits to Palestinian development.
“We knew this all along. I just couldn’t figure out how to explain it to people until I saw those maps,” he recalled, saying that they were essential in illustrating to then-secretary of state John Kerry and president Obama the reality of Israeli entrenchment in the West Bank.
Lowenstein acknowledged that the 60% he had highlighted was equivalent to Area C, which was placed under full Israeli control under the Oslo Accords. However, he pointed out that the goal of the agreement had been to gradually transfer parts of Area C to the Palestinian Authority.
“That’s how this narrative emerged in my head that this was Oslo reversed. Instead of transitioning power to the Palestinians they were effectively transitioning power over to the settlers,” Lowenstein said.
The goal of the agreement was to create a Palestinian entity, which Israel agreed to do in 2000 and 2001. Much of it would have been from Area C. But as far as I know there was no agreement to slowly transfer Area C to Palestinian hands without a peace agreement.
Beyond that, there are some small matters here and there that Lowenstein is pretending didn't happen.
Like an intifada that killed thousands. Like incitement directly from the Palestinian Authority.
Yet somehow Lowenstein is upset at Israel for not unilaterally giving land to a Palestinian government that consistently rejected peace and chose to encourage citizens to blow themselves up in the first decade of this century, and to stab and run over Jews in the second decade.
What Lowenstein is saying is that no matter what, Israel must be blamed, and he found a convenient way to do that by lying about history and maps to the President.
The only "peace plan" the Palestinians have publicly offered is one where they get everything east of the Green Line, where "refugees" can flood Israel and where they still would refuse to accept a Jewish state. And the Obama White House supported them - even after they spit in Obama's face by rejecting his own plan.
There is a sick, Israel hating pathology behind this.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday the PA will continue to pay stipends to the families of Palestinian security prisoners and slain terrorists even if it has to spend its last penny to do so.
“We will not accept a cut or cancellation of salaries to the families of martyrs and prisoners, as some are trying to bring about,” he told representatives of a Palestinian prisoners advocacy group.
“Even if we have only a penny left, we will give it to the martyrs, the prisoners and their families,” he said Monday.
“We view the prisoners and the martyrs as planets and stars in the skies of the Palestinian struggle, and they have priority in everything.”
He also voiced praise for the prisoners’ movement, saying it was “paving the way for the independence of Palestine.”
Abbas also praised some specific terrorists as martyrs, including Abdul Qadir Abu al-Fahm and Ishaq Maraghata both of whom were members of the PFLP in the 1960s and 1970s. A relative of a third "martyr," Ali al-Jaafari, spoke as well. It appears that the "martyrs" family payments continue on for decades after the deaths of the terrorists.
This adulation of terrorists is a basic part of the fabric of Palestinian life, and it is utterly incompatible with the idea of peace. To use Western funds to pay for this perversity is theft. To insist that the last penny of Western funds will go toward paying terrorists as a higher priority that food, schools or medicine is an indictment of the Palestinian leadership that is largely ignored by the world whose money is being spent.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you all. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Well, thank you, Fred, for that kind introduction. It reminded me when I was going through my confirmation process they were chasing down all the people I’d known my whole life, and they found one of the young men who played basketball with me at Los Amigos, and his quote was – they asked how good I was. And he said, “Well, he made the most of what he had.” (Laughter.)
Thanks for the kind introduction and thanks for hosting me here at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library. It’s a very special place and an honor for me to be here.
I also want to thank my friend Tom for joining me here tonight. He and I have been on multiple missions together, and I am confident we will continue to do so in the days and weeks and years ahead.
And it’s great to see Governor Wilson here. I voted for you a couple times a long time ago. (Laughter.)
And I know we have many members of the Iranian American community with us this evening. This is just a fraction of the quarter million Iranian Americans in Southern California alone. We have many Iranian American guests from all across the United States here as well. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you this evening, learning more about the situation in Iran as you see it, and understanding what your loved ones and friends are going through living in that place.
And I recognize the Iranian diaspora is diverse. There are many faith backgrounds and many different walks of life, and that’s a good thing, and not all Iranian Americans see things the same way. But I think everyone can agree that the regime in Iran has been a nightmare for the Iranian people, and it is important that your unity on that point is not diminished by differences elsewhere.
To our Iranian American and – to our Iranian American friends, tonight I want to tell you that the Trump administration dreams the same dreams for the people of Iran as you do, and through our labors and God’s providence that day will come true. (Applause.)
Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. As I’ll spell out more in a moment, the 40 years of fruit from the revolution has been bitter. Forty years of kleptocracy. Forty years of the people’s wealth squandered on supporting terrorism. Forty years of ordinary Iranians thrown in jail for peaceful expression of their rights. Why has the regime conducted itself in such an abhorrent way over the past 40 years and subjected its people to these conditions? It’s an important question.
The answer is at root in the revolutionary nature of the regime itself. (Applause.)
The ideologues who forcibly came to power in 1979 and remain in power today are driven by a desire to conform all of Iranian society to the tenets of the Islamic Revolution. The regime is also committed to spreading the revolution to other countries, by force if necessary. The total fulfillment of the revolution at home and abroad is the regime’s ultimate goal. It drives their behavior. Thus, the regime has spent four decades mobilizing all elements of the Iranian economy, foreign policy, and political life in service of that objective. To the regime, prosperity, security, and freedom for the Iranian people are acceptable casualties in the march to fulfill the revolution.
Economically, we see how the regime’s decision to prioritize an ideological agenda over the welfare of the Iranian people has put Iran into a long-term economic tailspin. During the time of the nuclear deal, Iran’s increased oil revenues could have gone to improving the lives of the Iranian people. Instead they went to terrorists, dictators, and proxy militias. Today, thanks to regime subsidies, the average Hizballah combatant makes two to three times what an Iranian firefighter makes on the streets of Iran. Regime mismanagement has led to the rial plummeting in value. A third of Iranian youth are unemployed, and a third of Iranians now live below the poverty line.
The bitter irony of the economic situation in Iran is that the regime uses this same time to line its own pockets while its people cry out for jobs and reform and for opportunity. The Iranian economy is going great – but only if you’re a politically-connected member of the elite. Two years ago, Iranians rightfully erupted in anger when leaked paystubs showed massive amounts of money inexplicably flowing into the bank accounts of senior government officials.
And there are many more examples of the widespread corruption.
Take Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary. He is worth at least $300 million dollars. He got this money from embezzling public funds into his own bank account. The Trump administration sanctioned Larijani in January for human rights abuses, because we aren’t afraid to tackle the regime at its highest level. (Applause.) Call me crazy – you won’t be the first – but I’m a little skeptical that a thieving thug under international sanctions is the right man to be Iran’s highest-ranking judicial official. (Laughter and applause.)
Former IRGC officer and Minister of Interior Sadeq Mahsouli is nicknamed “the Billionaire General.” He went from being a poor IRGC officer at the end of the Iran-Iraq war to being worth billions of dollars. How’d that happen? He somehow had a knack for winning lucrative construction and oil trading contracts from businesses associated with the IRGC. Being an old college buddy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just might have had something to do with it as well. (Laughter.)
The ayatollahs are in on the act, too. Judging by their vast wealth, they seem more concerned with riches than religion. These hypocritical holy men have devised all kinds of crooked schemes to become some of the wealthiest men on Earth while their people suffer.
Grand Ayatollah Makaram Shirazi is known as the “Sultan of Sugar” for his illicit trading of sugar, which has generated over $100 million for him. He has pressured the Iranian Government to lower subsidies to domestic sugar producers while he floods the market with his own more expensive imported sugar. This type of activity puts ordinary Iranians out of work.
Another ayatollah, one of Tehran’s Friday prayer leaders for the last 30 years, had the government transfer several lucrative mines to his foundation. He too is now worth millions of dollars.
And not many people know this, but the Ayatollah Khamenei has his own personal, off-the-books hedge fund called the Setad, worth $95 billion, with a B. That wealth is untaxed, it is ill-gotten, and it is used as a slush fund for the IRGC. The ayatollah fills his coffers by devouring whatever he wants. In 2013 the Setad’s agents banished an 82-year-old Baha’i woman from her apartment and confiscated the property after a long campaign of harassment. Seizing land from religious minorities and political rivals is just another day at the office for this juggernaut that has interests in everything from real estate to telecoms to ostrich farming. All of it is done with the blessing of Ayatollah Khamenei.
This list goes on, but we’ve got places to go tonight. The level of corruption and wealth among Iranian leaders shows that Iran is run by something that resembles the mafia more than a government.
On foreign policy, the regime’s mission of exporting the revolution has produced a decades-long campaign of ideologically-motivated violence and destabilization abroad. Assad, Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, Shia militant groups in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen feed on billions of regime cash while the Iranian people shout slogans like “Leave Syria, think about us.”
Our partners in the Middle East are plagued by Iranian cyberattacks and threatening behavior in the waters of the Persian Gulf. The regime and its allies in terror have left a trail of dissident blood across Europe and the Middle East.
Indeed, our European allies are not immune to the threat of regime-backed terrorism.
Just earlier this month, an Iranian “diplomat” based in Vienna was arrested and charged with supplying explosives for a terrorist bomb scheduled to bomb a political rally in France. This tells you everything you need to know about the regime: At the same time they’re trying to convince Europe to stay in the nuclear deal, they’re covertly plotting terrorist attacks in the heart of Europe.
And because fighting the United States and destroying Israel is at the core of the regime’s ideology, it has committed and supported many acts of violence and terrorism against both countries and our citizens. As just one example, well over a thousand American service members have been killed and wounded in Iraq from Iranian-made IEDs.
Today, multiple Americans are detained and missing inside of Iran. Baquer Namazi, Siamak Namazi, Xiyue Wang are unjustly held by the regime to this day, and Bob Levinson has been missing in Iran for over 11 years. There are others, too. And we in the Trump administration are working diligently to bring each of those Americans home from having been wrongfully detained for far too long. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Shouting.) President Trump imprisons children. The Trump-Pence regime is kidnapping children. Trump and Pence --
AUDIENCE: (Booing.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: Despite – despite the regime’s –
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Shouting off-mike.)
AUDIENCE: (Booing.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Shouting off-mike.)
AUDIENCE: USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Shouting off-mike.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: If there were – if there were only so much freedom of expression in Iran. (Cheers and applause.)
You know, despite the regime’s clear record of aggression, America and other countries have spent years straining to identify a political moderate. It’s like an Iranian unicorn. (Laughter.) The regime’s revolutionary goals and willingness to commit violent acts haven’t produced anyone to lead Iran that can be remotely called a moderate or a statesman.
Some believe that President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif fit that bill. The truth is they are merely polished front men for the ayatollahs’ international con artistry. Their nuclear deal didn’t make them moderates; it made them wolves in sheep’s clothing. Governments around the world worry that confronting the Islamic Republic harms the cause of moderates, but these so-called moderates within the regime are still violent Islamic revolutionaries with an anti-America, anti-West agenda. You only have to take their own words for it. And for that matter, the evidence reveals that their agenda is a anti-Iran agenda as well.
The regime’s absolute adherence to the Islamic Revolution mean it cannot endure any ideas in the Iranian society that would contradict or undermine it – unlike we just did here this evening. It’s why the regime has for decades heartlessly repressed its own people’s human rights, dignity, and fundamental freedoms.
It’s why the Iranian police detained a teenage Iranian gymnast for posting an Instagram video of herself dancing.
It’s why the regime arrests hundreds of Ahwazis, members of Iran’s minority Arab community, when they speak out to demand respect for their language and for their basic beliefs. The government’s morality police beat women in the streets and arrest those who do not wish to wear the hijab.
On “White Wednesday” activist recently – one activist was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison for protesting compulsory hijab wearing.
The desire to uphold the Islamic Revolution has especially resulted in gross suppression of the freedom of religion in Iran, often to barbaric ends.
Last month, a simple man, a bus driver, a father of two children, and a member of the Iranian Gonabadi Sufi Dervish Community, was convicted and sentenced to death. His sentence came on questionable grounds following violent clashes between security forces and the Dervishes. He was reportedly denied access to a lawyer before, during – before and during his grossly unfair trial. This man, Mr. Salas – and his supporters – maintains his innocence throughout, reportedly stating he had been tortured into a forced confession. Sadly, on June 18th, the regime hanged Mr. Salas in prison.
His death was part of a larger crackdown that began in February, when at least 300 Sufis demanding the release of their fellow faith members were unjustly arrested. Right now, hundreds of Sufi Muslims in Iran remain imprisoned on account of their religious beliefs, with reports of several having died at the hands of the regime’s brutal security forces.
Among those imprisoned is the 91-year-old leader, Dr. Noor Ali Tabandeh, who has been under house arrest for at least the last part of four months – the greatest part of four months. He is in need of immediate medical care.
The religious intolerance of the regime in Iran does not only extend to Sufi Muslims. The same goes for Christians and Jews and Sunnis and Baha’is and Zoroastrians and members of many other groups inside Iran who live with the fear that their next prayer may be indeed their last.
What grieves us so badly about the treatment of religious minorities in Iran is that their presence far pre-dates the regime. They are a historic part of the rich fabric of an ancient and vibrant Iranian civilization. That fabric has been torn by intolerant, black-robed enforcers. When other faiths are suppressed, the image of Iran becomes a self-portrait of the ayatollahs and of the IRGC.
In response to myriad government failures, corruption, and disrespect of rights, since December Iranians have been taking to the streets in the most enduring and forceful protests since 1979. Some shout the slogan, “The people are paupers while the mullahs live like gods.” Others choose to shut down the Grand Bazaar in Tehran. The specific grievances do differ, but all those voicing dissatisfaction share one thing: They have been ill-treated by a revolutionary regime. Iranians want to be governed with dignity, accountability, and respect. (Applause.)
The regime – this is important. The regime’s brutal response to these peaceful protests reflects the intolerance that its revolutionary worldview has produced. Last January, the regime welcomed in the new year with the arrests of up to 5,000 of its own people. They were peacefully calling for a better life. Hundreds reportedly remain behind bars, and several are dead at the hands of their own government. The leaders cynically call it suicide.
Overall, it is clear the regime’s ideology has led many Iranians to be angry they cannot call their homeland a “normal” country.
They know that a constitution that enshrines the export of Islamic revolution and the destruction of its neighbors and the restriction of citizenship is not normal.
Ordinary Iranians know that their government’s torture of its own people is not normal.
Earning multiple rounds of sanctions by the UN Security Council is not normal.
Inciting chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” is not normal.
Being the number one state sponsor of terror is similarly abnormal.
Sometimes it seems the world has become desensitized to the regime’s authoritarianism at home and its campaigns of violence abroad, but the proud Iranian people are not staying silent about their government’s many abuses.
And the United States under President Trump will not stay silent either. (Applause.)
In light of these protests and 40 years of regime tyranny, I have a message for the people of Iran: The United States hears you; the United States supports you; the United States is with you.
When the United States sees the shoots of liberty pushing up through rocky soil we pledge our solidarity, because we too took a hard first step towards becoming a free country a few years back.
Right now, the United States is undertaking a diplomatic and financial pressure campaign to cut off the funds that the regime uses to enrich itself and support death and destruction. (Applause.) We have an obligation to put maximum pressure on the regime’s ability to generate and move money, and we will do so.
At the center of this campaign is the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran’s banking and energy sectors.
As we have explained over the last few weeks, our focus is to work with countries importing Iranian crude oil to get imports as close to zero as possible by November 4th. Zero.
Recently – (applause). Recently, as part of this campaign, we designated the Bahraini Shia militia terrorist organization Saraya al-Ashtar, and with the UAE we have jointly disrupted a currency exchange network that was transferring millions of dollars to the IRGC.
And there’s more to come. Regime leaders – especially those at the top of the IRGC and the Quds Force like Qasem Soleimani – must be made to feel painful consequences of their bad decision making. (Applause.) We are asking every nation, every nation who is sick and tired of the Islamic Republic’s destructive behavior, to join our pressure campaign. This especially goes for our allies in the Middle East and Europe, people who have themselves been terrorized by violent regime’s activity for decades.
And you should know that the United States is not afraid to spread our message on the airwaves and online inside of Iran either. (Applause.) For 40 years the Iranian people have heard from their leaders that America is the “Great Satan.” We do not believe they are interested in hearing the fake news any longer. (Laughter and applause.)
Today, one in four Iranians – 14 million people – watches or listens to U.S. Government broadcasts each week. And it’s more important than ever now to refute the regime’s lies and repeat our deep desire for friendship with the Iranian people. Right now, our U.S. Board – Broadcasting Board of Governors is taking new steps to help Iranians get around internet censorship as well. The BBG is also launching a new 24/7 Farsi-language TV channel. It will span not only television, but radio, digital, and social media format, so that the ordinary Iranians inside of Iran and around the globe can know that America stands with them. (Applause.)
And finally – and finally, America is unafraid to expose human rights violations and support those who are being silenced.
We continue to raise our concerns over the Islamic Republic’s dire record of human rights abuses each time we speak at the UN and with our partners who maintain diplomatic relations with that country. We make it clear that the world is watching, and as the regime continues to make its own people the longest-suffering victims, we will not stand silent. (Applause.)
And now we call on everyone here in the audience and our international partners to help us shine a spotlight on the regime’s abuses and to support the Iranian people.
The goal of our efforts is to one day see Iranians in Iran enjoying the same quality of life that Iranians in America enjoy. (Cheers and applause.)
Iranians in America enjoy all the freedoms secured by their government, not trampled by it. They are free to pursue economic opportunities they believe are best for them and their families, and they can be proud of their country and practice their faiths in the way they desire.
There are a few individuals with us I want to highlight tonight who embody what we hope for the Iranian people.
Goli Ameri came to the United States as a freshman at Stanford and has founded successful companies and has served at the State Department and at the UN.
Susan Azizzadeh was forced to leave everything behind and come here in 1979. Today she is the leader of the Iranian American Jewish Federation. (Cheers and applause.)
Makan Delrahim – I think I saw him – came to America with his family when he was just 10 years old. (Applause.) He is now the Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice – quite amazing. (Applause.)
We hope that the successes of Goli and Susan and Makan and the many others American – Iranian Americans among the diaspora in the United States remind all Iranians of what is possible under a government that respects its people and governs with accountability. Iranians should not have to flee their homeland to find a better life. (Applause.)
While it is ultimately up to the Iranian people to determine the direction of their country, the United States, in the spirit of our own freedoms, will support the long-ignored voice of the Iranian people. Our hope is that ultimately the regime will make meaningful changes in its behavior both inside of Iran and globally. As President Trump has said, we’re willing to talk with the regime in Iran, but relief from American pressure will come only when we see tangible, demonstrated, and sustained shifts in Tehran’s policies.
I thought I’d close tonight in a perfectly appropriate way by invoking the words of a man who routinely made the case for freedom and respect far more eloquently than I ever could, President Ronald Reagan. In 1982 – (applause).
In 1982, President Reagan gave a speech to the British Parliament that became known as the Westminster address. He urged other Western governments to support those around the world trying to break free of tyranny and injustice. His reason why was simple and powerful. He said, “Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right and universal right of every human being.”
This is why we also call on all governments to end their flirtations with a revolutionary regime and come quickly to the aid of the Iranian people. (Applause.) On that same day in those same remarks, President Reagan said, “Let us ask ourselves: ‘What kind of people do we think we are?’ And let us answer, ‘Free people, worthy of freedom, and determined not only to remain so, but to help others gain their freedom as well.’”
Today, the United States condemns oppression levied on the Iranian people by those who rule unjustly, and we proudly amplify the voices of those in Iran longing to have those inalienable and universal human rights cease to be ignored and instead to be honored. We do so knowing that many in the streets and marketplaces speak for those who the regime has permanently silenced over the years – who may even have been loved ones who are in the audience tonight.
It’s America’s hope that the next 40 years of Iran’s history will not be marked by repression and fear – but with freedom and fulfillment – for the Iranian people.
Thank you. (Applause.)
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The “If Only Israel” (IOI) syndrome is the misguided notion — peddled in the name of Israel’s “best interests” by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds — that if only Israel did this or that, peace with the Palestinians would be at hand. But since Israel doesn’t, then the Jewish state constitutes the principal, perhaps the only real obstacle to a new day in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Striking, isn’t it?
Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these “enlightened” souls, including, most recently, a slim majority of Irish senators, then all would be fine. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.
The thinking goes: Why can’t those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done — it’s so obvious to us, isn’t it? — so that the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?
If only Israel reversed its settlements policy. If only Israel understood that Gaza’s tunnel-diggers and kite-flyers are just exercising their right to “peaceful protest.” If only the IDF restrained itself. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. If only Israel went the extra mile with President Mahmoud Abbas. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______. Well, go ahead and fill in the blank.
The point is that for the IOI crowd, it essentially all comes down to Israel. And IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by its adherents’ assessment of the current Israeli government, of course.
After all, many media outlets, from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel, branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “hardline” from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence, while generally avoiding any descriptive judgement of Abbas and his entourage.
21 July 2018. Saturday morning, 5am and I am on my way to spend the weekend at the Tolpuddle Martyrs festival. I don’t get to choose these dates, and my wife is none too happy about me missing her birthday. Three years ago, Bournemouth Action for Israel had a stall at the Tolpuddle event. On the Saturday they faced some poisonous verbal abuse. When they turned up for the Sunday, they were told it was advisable to leave as ‘their safety’ could not be guaranteed. They’ve been denied a presence ever since.
I wonder how Tolpuddle reconciles the contradiction between the core history upon which the event was built – the 1834 arrest, on trumped up charges, of a group of workers uniting to strike – with the organisers failing to protect the rights of a group of Zionists who were there to defend themselves from people making wild accusations against them.
Silencing those Zionist voices, denying the right to free speech and bowing down to intimidation from those who hold power, is EXACTLY what the Tolpuddle festival is meant to oppose. Instead, like most of what is happening on the left these days, the movement itself has become a corrupted and perverse inversion of it’s own core value system.
This weekend those Zionists are returning. They are going to stand with banners, flags and leaflets as the march walks past. For my research into antisemitism inside the Labour camp, I could not miss this opportunity.
Classified cables exchanged in 2006 between the State Department and the US Embassy in Ireland -- and published by Wikileaks in 2011 -- revealed that the administration of George W. Bush was trying to find out whether the European Council for Fatwa and Research and other such groups were working to legitimize Sharia (Islamic) law in Western Europe.
According to James Kenny, the American ambassador to Ireland at the time, a certain journalist claimed that outside of Qatar, Ireland had the strongest Muslim Brotherhood presence, and that al-Qaradawi "runs Islam in Ireland."
The White House's concern may have been warranted concerning some Muslim Brotherhood zealots in Ireland. But there are other Irish Islamic leaders who are more willing to compromise with Ireland's values, if not assimilate. In his 2014 book, Islam and Education in Ireland: An Introduction to the Faith and the Educational Challenges It Faces, Dr. Ali Selim -- the ICCI spokesman and secretary general of the Irish Council of Imams -- called for a reform of Ireland's education system, to make it more "inclusive" for Muslims. Among the changes he advocated was gender segregation in gym, music and art classes, where there could be "a clash of values" with Islam. Selim was interviewed in the Irish press and asked whether he favored Sharia to be implemented in Ireland. He responded that only in the case where Muslims are a majority is Sharia likely to be enacted.
Nor is Islamic extremism in Ireland limited to the ICCI campus alone. The leaked US Embassy cables also indicated that even some Irish Muslims refer to a certain mosque in Dublin as "Tora Bora," a cave complex on Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. One of the mosques imams, Yayah al-Hussein, originally from Sudan, is a member of Hamas, and many of its congregants are Bosnian and Afghan jihadists.
That jihadist groups feel comfortable in Ireland is understandable, given the country's genuine societal openness to Islam in general and Muslim immigrants in particular. In addition, Irish politics tend to favor the narrative of Palestinian Arabs in their conflict with Israel. This is due, in part, to their viewing -- inaccurately -- the plight of the Palestinians through the prism of their own history of occupation by England. But the Irish never aspired to displace Great Britain.
Continuing the discussion
from last time, until very recently, “international law” consisted
of agreements such as treaties, alliances and trade deals negotiated between individual
nations to cease hostilities, form alliances, or define political and economic
spheres of influence. While “nations”
might refer to tiny city states of a few hundred thousand people or empires
ruling millions, the treaty – a binding contract between the specific parties to
the contract – was the cornerstone of internationalism.
While some broader “internationalist” principles such as diplomatic
immunity evolved over time, these were primarily means to facilitate, rather
than transcend, inter-state communication and negotiation. The notion that there might exist a distinct body
of law that bound all nations, and institutions separate from and above nation
states (other than empires) that could interpret and possibly enforce such law
on a global basis, is a very modern concept.
With the emergence of the nation state (itself a recent phenomenon),
political activities - including war - primarily took place between countries. And as new weapons and ways of waging war
entered national arsenals thanks to the industrial revolution, these
inter-state wars became particularly brutal.
It was after what people felt was the most brutal war that could ever
take place, World War I - “The War to End All Wars,” that the notion of an
international organization that all nations would defer to - a League of
Nations - was born.
This first attempt to lay the foundations for a broader international
order was based on the assumption that no nation wanted to go through anything
like the First World War again, and thus national interests and international
interests would forevermore be in aligned with the goal of preventing such a
war. All that was needed was an
institution to facilitate communication, interpret emerging “international law”
that transcended the laws of nation states, and work together as a global
alliance to ensure the peace was kept.
There are a number of reasons why this experiment failed its first test:
the challenge of an emerging Fascism which led to World War II, but at its core
the assumption that national interests and international ones would naturally
fall into alignment was at best utopian, at worst delusional. For once a nation capable of projecting power
and mobilizing international diplomacy towards its own ends emerged, what was
to stop it from making demands on the new international order, rather than accepting
dictates from it?
After World War II, a new international peace-keeping organization –
the United Nations – was created. And
since the fall of the Soviet Union, hundreds, if not thousands, of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have emerged, many of them dedicated to
laying the foundation to a new set of rules – a
new truly international law –
that will bind all states to behave in ways that do not disrupt global peace,
prosperity and progress.
We’ll dive more deeply to the glass-half-empty side of this development
next time, but even if you consider this trend to be all for the best, this
newly emerging international law runs into an immediate problem in that it does
not rest on the two pillars discussed previously that undergird the successful
legal systems you find within nation states: consent and enforcement.
Like treaties negotiated between states, membership in international
organizations is not derived from the consent of the governed, but by the
decisions of national leaders to negotiate a treaty or join an alliance. And while one can claim that elected leaders are
empowered to make such decisions on behalf of the governed, most nations - including
most nations in the UN and other international bodies - are not democracies
which means that decisions to participate - and how to participate - in
international institutions are being made by an unelected individual or a
ruling elite.
Regarding enforcement, even the largest and most powerful international
agency, the United Nations, has virtually no military power of its own and must
call upon nation states, which still remain the only actors able to exercise
and project power, to volunteer to implement UN mandates. In theory, it does this by moral suasion: by
convincing “members of the international community” (i.e., nation states) to
demonstrate their commitment to global stability by providing the manpower and
resources needed to keep the peace and prevent war and genocide.
Glancing through the last few decades, one can make an argument that
this system has been effective with UN-initiated action stopping a Communist
takeover of Korea or an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait, and UN peace-keepers deployed
to separate warring parties in places like Yugoslavia. But if you look a bit closer at each of these
examples, enforcement of UN-interpreted international law only seems to have
taken place when it was in the interest of a nation or set of nations to do so.
It was in the interest of the US and its allies to prevent Communist
encroachment in Asia, just as it was in the interest of the US, Europe and many
Middle East states to prevent Saddam Hussein from adding oil-rich Kuwait to his
dominion. And thus the inviolability of
national borders was enforced in the case of the 1991 Gulf War, even though
this principle was not enforced, or even invoked, when powerful nations such as
the US, USSR and China penetrated borders in placed like Panama, Hungary and
Tibet.
Similarly, ending genocide on the European continent was in European
interests, and thus the UN intervened in Yugoslavia but only stood by
impotently as Rwanda descended into murderous chaos.
Some people have noted that the emergence of a global legal system is
bound to encounter growing pains, but that it must be supported and nurtured if
we are to ever evolve away from a system where only nation states get to call
(and fire) the shots.
This is a fair argument, but if and only if those who make it are
willing to answer - or at least ask themselves - the key question of what is to
prevent an international order that is not based on consent or enforcement from
becoming dominated by the very state actors they are meant to impartially judge,
limit or control?
To be continued…
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Linda Sarsour never tires of emphasizing
how “unapologetically Muslim” she is. I’m not entirely sure what that means,
but perhaps she gave a useful example when she recently visited the Temple
Mount.
Sarsour posted
a short clip showing the Dome of the Rock to her Instagram account with the
text: “God is GREAT all the time. The beautiful Dome of the Rock in #Palestine.
#Jerusalem”
For most Muslim tourists, I would consider this an
unremarkable post. After all, Muslims are indoctrinated to believe that the
Dome of the Rock is part of the “Al Aqsa mosque compound,” which they are told
to consider as Islam’s “third holiest site.” The fact that it is Judaism’s
holiest site is always adamantly denied or dismissed as a fabricated idea. At
the same time, Palestinian and other Arab Muslim media never tire to churn out
vicious libels about Jewish attacks on the site, and Jews are accused of falsely
claiming that the Islamic buildings were erected on the ruins of their ancient
temple, while every good Muslim knows that it was the biblical Adam or his son,
or Abraham and his son Isaac, who built the Al Aqsa mosque.
I’m sorry if the idea of biblical figures building a mosque
long before Muhammad introduced Islam sounds a bit crazy, but this
is what you can learn from Linda Sarsour’s dear friend Imam Omar
Suleiman – who was recently listed
by CNN (where he also has publishedop-eds)
as one of 25
Influential American Muslims (needless to say, Linda Sarsour is also
included in the list).
Sarsour has said that Suleiman makes her “more
proud to be a Muslim and a Palestinian,” and perhaps she fully shares his Temple
denial and his vicious anti-Jewish theological
views.
Her recent Instagram post is certainly remarkable for
someone who claims to be not only “progressive,” but who also wants to be
considered as a credible opponent of antisemitism.
Sarsour is surely fully aware that the Temple Mount is
Judaism’s holiest site, but that – due to constant threats of Muslim violence –
Jews are banned from praying anywhere on the huge platform, which measures
about 150,000 square meters (37 acres). And as Sarsour surely also knows, the
fanatically imposed Muslim supremacy restricts the access of all non-Muslims,
including Christians for whom the site has significance in their faith.
So when Sarsour stands in front of the Dome of the Rock and
says “God is GREAT all the time”, she is triumphantly joining the Muslim
fanatics who make sure that only Muslims are allowed to do anything that can be
construed as worship on the Temple Mount. Any Jew or Christian who would stand
in front of the Dome of the Rock and would declare “God is GREAT all the time”
would risk being attacked by a Muslim mob and/or being swiftly arrested by
police.
That’s clearly perfectly fine with the “unapologetically
Muslim” Linda Sarsour, who for good measure places the Dome of the Rock in
“#Palestine”. With this she makes clear that the building that was erected on
the orders of a Muslim emperor to obliterate the ruins of the Jewish Temple and
prevent its rebuilding for all time should indeed continue to serve
as “a symbol of the permanent supremacy and governance of Islam and the Muslims
over the … Noble Sanctuary or al-Haram al-Sharif.”
I guess if you’re as “unapologetically Muslim” as Linda
Sarsour, Islamic imperialism remains a most wonderful thing that – unlike all
other imperialist regimes – should still be celebrated in the 21st century.
Both Linda Sarsour and Omar Suleiman are heavily promoted in
the media as modern Muslims who have nothing in common with Islamist fanatics.
If you don’t agree, both Sarsour and Suleiman and the media will denounce you
as “Islamophobic.” But the truth is that any Muslim who is unwilling to
acknowledge the historic Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and unwilling to
accept that Jews have the right to visit freely and pray somewhere at the site
has something very fundamental in common with Islamist fanatics.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Israel has just approved the law on the “state of the Jewish nation”. Critics in global circles and the media have been spouting forth on the “attack on pluralism and democracy”.
After 70 years, Israel lacks a constitution. It is a quite a unique anomaly among Western countries, because constitutions are the cornerstone of democracies, they define their identity and purpose.
Israel has “basic laws” on individual rights (in that sense, Israel is as liberal as New Jersey) and the separation of powers, but not a fundamental law that defines the identity and purpose of the state. The new law is approved in order to fill the void.
Without a Nationality Law, the “law of return” (a tenet of Zionism which guarantees automatic immigration rights to Jews, for example to the French Jews now under Islamist attack) could one day be overthrown as “discriminatory”, as well as the anthem of Israel (which expresses the faithfulness of two millennia of Jews to their land), the flag (another Jewish symbol with the Star of David) could be challenged in court for ignoring the rights of the Arab minority and the Menorah (the Knesset symbol also engraved on the Arch of Titus in Rome) could be considered “racist”. The law protects all these.
Opponents argue that declaring Hebrew to be the official language of Israel, while guaranteeing a “special status” to Arabic, is detrimental and racist toward the Arab minority. But even the Constitution of France states that “the language of the Republic is French” (article 2) while recognizing the “regional languages” as part of the “French heritage” (article 75). Has anyone ever attacked France for this, despite its having a large Arab minority from its former colonies? Every road sign and recorded announcement in israel is in both Hebrew and Arabic (English as well, and sometimes recordings have a Russian option)
The Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights. Not only that, but Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women have always been able to vote. The Arabs hold numerous seats in the Knesset and the only party ever banned by Israel is a Jewish one (Kach). Israeli Arabs have also held various government positions.
At the time of the foundation of Israel, only one Arab high school was open, today there are hundreds of Arab schools.
It’s no secret that Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates loathe Iran. What’s far more surprising is that Iran seems to be wearing out its welcome even in the Arab countries with which it is most closely allied. That, at least, is the message of both a recent study of Syrian textbooks and a recent wave of violent protests in Iraq.
In Syria, Shiite Iran has been the mainstay of the Assad regime (which belongs to the Alawite sect of Shiism) ever since civil war erupted in 2011, pitting the regime against Sunni rebels. It has brought more than 80,000 troops to Syria to fight for the regime, mostly either from Shiite militias it already sponsored in Lebanon and Iraq or from new Shiite militias created especially for this purpose out of Afghan and Pakistani refugees in Iran. It has also given the Assad regime astronomical sums of money to keep it afloat.
Scholars estimate its combined military and economic aid to Syria over the course of the war at anywhere from $30 billion to $105 billion. Without this Iranian help, the regime likely wouldn’t have survived until Russia finally intervened in 2015, providing the crucial air power that enabled Assad to regain most of the territory he had lost.
Given all this, one would expect the regime to be grateful to its Iranian benefactors. Instead, as the textbook study shows, Assad is teaching Syrian schoolchildren a healthy dose of suspicion toward Iran.
The study, by researchers from the IMPACT-se research institute, examined official Syrian textbooks for first through twelfth graders used in areas controlled by Assad in 2017-18. Unsurprisingly, these books present Russia as a close ally. Students are even required to study the Russian language.
The portrayal of Iran, in contrast, is “lukewarm at best,” the report said. In part, this is because the “curriculum as a whole revolves around secular pan-Arabism” and Syria’s position as an integral part of the “Arab homeland,” to which non-Arab Iran emphatically doesn’t belong. And in part, it’s because Iran has historically been the Arab world’s rival.
If when you woke on the morning of Sunday 15 July, you made the error of watching the ABC television news bulletin, you would have seen that the lead item began: ‘The Israeli military has launched a wave of airstrikes against dozens of militant targets in the Gaza Strip.’ The bulletin included video clips of bombs exploding buildings, narrated as Israel’s targets in Gaza, and went on to describe ‘the operation is one of Israel’s broadest since the 2014 war.’ Anyone not informed about events in the region could be forgiven for concluding Israel had just initiated a war and had done so with no clear provocation.
Omitted completely by the ABC was the critical contextual information that in the previous 24 hours Israeli citizens in the south of the country had been targets of over 170 rockets and mortars which in turn followed weeks of fire bombs delivered by kites, balloons and inflated condoms. These attacks were orchestrated against Israel by the proscribed terrorist organisations Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Hardly a trivial oversight.
The ABC did mention that three Israelis had been injured by a (singular) rocket in Sderot but failed to mention the sequence or anything of the scale and timeframe of the attacks against Israel. Or even who was to blame for their injuries.
Indeed, the ABC reporting was so biased and one-sided it could have been scripted by Hamas. Imagine, if you will, a meeting in the Hamas command-and-control centre which is actually located in the basement of Al-Shifa hospital – a gross example of terrorists using human shields. In the room made smoky by nagilas are large signs with slogans ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’. The only way to enter the doorway is to walk on flags of the USA and Israel painted on the floor.
The purpose of this fictitious meeting is to draft instructions for the ABC in Australia. The meeting settles on a set of four instructions to guide the ABC for its news bulletins.
Firstly, don’t mention that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired over 170 rockets and mortars into Israel in the preceding 24 hours during the Jewish Sabbath and don’t mention the hundreds of firebombs sent out of Gaza into Israel in the weeks prior.
Secondly, don’t mention that Hamas rockets deliberately aimed at residential areas hit a home, a children’s playground and a synagogue.
Thirdly, the opening statement of the news bulletin must refer to Israel having launched an attack without any reference to preceding attacks initiated by Hamas.
Fourthly, when video is shown on television for illustration, only show resultant destruction in Gaza and do not show any video evidence of destruction caused in Israel.
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.
An Ally
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Abraham Accords, War, Oct 7,Iran, Jews, Jewish,
Israel, Palestine, Gaza,]
The way the game is played in the Middle East.
* * * ...
The Jewish Cordoba
-
I have blogged multiple times here on what I see as a parallel between the
conflict between Catholics and Moslems over the Cordoba Cathedral and that
of ...
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust
-
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust Faith After the Holocaust Rabbi
Sacks responds to the ...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Elder of Ziyon
