Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

Friday, 6 May 2016

Mark Regev at the Oxford Union (video)

Mr Ambassador at his very best!


One hour's worth of footage.

"Ask Them if they've Ever Seen a Picture of Israelis - in colour" (video)

No prizes for guessing who this question is posed to!


This fanatical Irish activist for a start!


Video bonus: The man who might be London's mayor in a few hours:


Thursday, 5 May 2016

"Our Hatred of Jews Has Poisoned Us" (video)

No, not a confession from the Corbynistas in Britain's Labour Party (see my previous post) but the declaration of an Egyptian scholar.


To quote the uploader and translator (Memri.org):
'In a lecture posted on the Internet on March 21, Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad said that the Prophet Muhammad had lowered the Jews to a "subhuman level, viewing them as animals," and he compared the treatment of the Jews in the years following Muhammad's death to that of the Nazis. "This hatred is poisoning us" and "preventing us from dealing with our problems in a serious way," said Abdel-Samad, adding that "instead of poisoning one generation after another with this hatred, we should let them learn something from humanity," in order to enable them to "overcome the barrier of hatred and of fear of the other." The lecture is titled "Islamic Fascism and the Jews." For additional lectures by Abdel-Samad, see MEMRI TV clips 5443 and 5356.'

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Corbyn's Da Joos Crisis: items from an archive

As Jeremy Corbyn sinks deeper into the mire (hat tip Ian) allow me to  link to my latest Tuesday post on the Elder of Ziyon site.

The image at top left here appeared at the top of the article in The Times (7 March 1985) by Peter Bradley that I quote from in that Elder post.

Mr Bradley's article shows what a growing problem antisemitism was in the British Labour Party at that juncture, and of course (though the usual suspects have gone into overdrive to deny it, and turn their wrath on the estimable John Mann in crude and despicable fashion) it has hit crisis point now.
 
In the Elder post I quote from an article by the erudite Dr James Vaughan of the University of Aberystwyth.

I'll do more than hat tip Dr Vaughan.

I take my hat right off to him for the ensuing recent items I've borrowed from his Twitter page, items that help to illuminate the depth of Labour's antisemitism problem and are instructive as far as my Elder post is concerned.


So, should you happen to see this, Dr Vaughan, Diolch yn fawr!

The following is the cartoon that is referred to in Mr Bradley's article as appearing in Ken Livingstone's Labour Herald in 1985.






A retweet by Dr Vaughan (the [Sir] Richard Evans mentioned is this gentleman):




 The following item refers to Andrew Faulds, I believe, also mentioned in my post; I remember him well (even had an exchange of correspondence with him regarding his stance towards Israel).  This item from the notorious California-based Institute for Historical Review could have been innocently acquired and kept by him, of course.


 One from my own archive:

Getty image
 The photo shows the erstwhile Labour Secretary of State for Wales and Middle East minister Hain the Pain (also mentioned in my Elder post) in those radically socialistic "Young Liberal" days of his during which he did his best to demonise Israel and even opposed the right of persecuted Soviet Jewry to find respite there.

That was when this odious little man with the huge ambitions nauseously advocated replacing Israel with a "secular democratic state" (a goal to which he's openly returned).

Let's be grateful that he never fulfilled the prediction that he would one day become a Labour prime minister.

And let's hope that we'll be able to say the same of Corbyn and his ilk.

Meanwhile, a look at the archive of Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger:


Sunday, 1 May 2016

David Singer: Trump Targets Obama and Clinton Betrayal of Israel

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech has created expectations that he will match Marco Rubio’s pledge to stand by the commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004.

Rubio made his unequivocal pledge on 3 December 2015 at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum during his unsuccessful race to secure the Republican Party’s endorsement as its Presidential nominee:
“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders”
President Obama and his then former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did everything in their power to wriggle out of those Bush commitments – despite their having been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate 95:3 on 23 June 2004 and by the House of Representatives 407:9 on 24 June 2004.

Trump clearly had Obama and Clinton’s betrayal of Israel in his sights – when stating:
“… your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place.”
The Bush-Congress endorsed commitments made in that 2004 letter undoubtedly represent such an agreement.

President Bush’s letter acknowledged the risks that Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza represented – and assured Israel that America:
1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.
2. Would maintain its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,
3. Was strongly committed to Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state.
4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion
Sharon’s successor  – Ehud Olmert – had neither forgotten nor overlooked the critical significance of Bush’s commitments when agreeing to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority – telling an international audience of world leaders at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:
“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”
Gaza by then had become a de facto terrorist State with Hamas firmly entrenched as Gaza’s governing authority.

Israel had since its disengagement been subjected to a sustained barrage of thousands of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of operating so freely from Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

President Obama’s attempt to disavow Bush’s commitments was first orchestrated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – as this report on 6 June 2009 disclosed:
“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.
They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.”
Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and
"did not become part of the official position of the United States government."
Clinton – doubling again as Obama’s attack dog – made Obama’s intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
Bush’s letter never mentioned “agreed swaps” – signalling trouble for Israel if Obama himself were to confirm Clinton’s latest statement. Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when Obama declared on 19 May 2011:
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
 Michael Oren – Israel’s Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 – called for Bush’s commitments to be resuscitated on 15 January 2015:
"... it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”
Others are making similar demands.

Trump is responding with his clearly articulated message:

Keep agreements made with your allies – don’t ditch them. Loyalty will always trump expediency.

Obama and Clinton’s shameful betrayal of Israel in this sordid affair seems set to be targeted by Trump.

Jew-baiting Corbynistas Bait John Mann



Labour MP John Mann, a doughty long-time fighter against antisemitism, on why he confronted fellow MP Ken Livingstone for the latter's outburst regarding Hitler and called him a "Nazi apologist":

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/called-ken-livingstone-nazi-apologist-7854534

Richard Littlejohn on Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the current crop of vocal antisemites in his party:
'When accused of anti-semitism, [Ken Livingstone]  resorts to semantics, just as he did yesterday. And until now, his brothers-in-arms have been happy to indulge him and the rest of the Jew-haters in the party.
Consider Corbyn’s initial reaction to the Nazi [sic! i.e. Naz] Shah comments, which he dismissed as ‘historic’.This is a man who sits on the front bench alongside his plus-sized deputy, Nonce Finder General Tom Watson — a muck-raking, dirt-throwing, smear-monger who has spent the past few years accusing assorted Tories of ‘historic’ sex crimes dating back decades and using his position to demand full-scale police investigations.Yet as far as Corbyn was concerned, anti-Jewish remarks made by a Labour politician two years ago were ‘historic’ and thus unworthy of further comment....
But what else should we expect? I’m prepared to concede that Corbyn doesn’t consider himself an anti-semite — despite counting among his ‘friends’ the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose sole purpose in life is wiping Jews off the face of the earth.
He spent most of yesterday hiding behind the sofa as the crisis unfolded and the Boys In The Bubble went into a feeding frenzy. Assorted Labour MPs came out of the woodwork to demand strong action against Livingstone and insist that he wasn’t representative of their party.
Two questions. Where have they been for the past ten years? And what makes them think that Livingstone’s abhorrent views are in any way ‘unrepresentative’?
When I was making my documentary, almost nobody would come forward to speak out publicly. There was one hero prepared to put his head above the parapet — the Bassetlaw MP John Mann. And yesterday he was again front and centre in denouncing Livingstone — a crime for which he was reprimanded by the chief whip.'
Read more here

Meanwhile, here are some whacko reactions from the usual suspects towards antisemitism in the Labour Party.

First, from "Jews for Jeremy".  Anti-Israel activists figure among this bunch. Of course Jews of that stripe are well-liked by the Corbynistas.


Second, a very small taste of the nauseating personal abuse, much of it laced with antisemitism and perceptions of "Zionist" money, that has been left on John Mann's Facebook page, with many angry Corbynistas accusing him of being in the pay of the "Zionists" and telling him he deserves de-selection as a candidate for his Bassetlaw constituency before the next election.  The abuse of him is spilling onto all his recent posts, irrespective of their topic. (I'm sure that, being a politician, Mr Mann is thick-skinned; nevertheless, please consider going to Mr Mann's Facebook page and leaving a supportive comment, for his stand against antisemitism has been tireless and unremitting):

 

And a few of the representative common-or-garden comments by some old mates of ours, Sean (ranting on the streets of Dublin against Israeli "blood" diamonds is his shtik), chieftain Mick and Pam being stalwarts of the PSCs in Ireland, Scotland and England respectively:


And, amid the many posts linking to articles and videos that relate to this crisis in the Labour Party, here's a think-outside-the-box comment by pro-Israel blogger David Collier: