The Jew in Yellow No More

Saturday, March 20, 2010

A revolutionary proposal

from Melanie Phillips "Spectator"

via Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs

Friday, 19th March 2010

Commenting on the Obama/Israel crisis, Ed Lasky concludes that the US President is deliberately trying to turn America against Israel – and he is succeeding.

I have written in today’s Jewish Chronicle that it is time for Israel to stop going along with the diplomatic lies told for so long by Britain, America and the west about the Arab war against Israel. Lies that have twisted so many people’s minds into the belief that Israel is the historic usurper and aggressor in the Middle East, whereas in fact the Jews and the Jews alone are the rightful heirs to the land, in historical, legal and moral terms, and a monstrous injustice has been and is still being done to them.

It is these lies, and the consequent appeasement of the Arabs who promulgate them and the rewarding of Arab aggression, which has caused the Middle East impasse to remain an unending conflict. And it is these lies and the new distortions supplied by Obama which now pose the greatest single danger to Israel’s security and existence by eroding public support – not just in Britain, which is already lost, as is to a lesser extent ‘old’ Europe, but among the people who are the staunchest supporters of Israel: the great mass of middle America.

Disastrously, Israel has gone along with these lies -- for a variety of reasons. First, Israel observes the rules of diplomacy which almost invariably involve compromise. Now compromise is in general a good thing; but in a war of extermination, if the victim compromises with its attackers it strengthens them and makes its defeat more likely. In no other conflict in the history of the planet has a country which is the victim of an eight-decade belligerency aimed at wiping it off the map been expected to make concessions to its attackers. In no other conflict has such a victimised people been bullied by onlookers into doing so. Yet the first pressure is what Britain, America and Europe have been applying for decades, and the second is what Obama is now applying, with the EU falling in behind him: bullying the prospective victim of extermination into submitting to measures which increase the risk of such an eventuality, and in the process almost forcing the Palestinians from their habitual pose of sullen obstructionism and sporadic terrorism into another spate of outright war.

This global trance of intellectual inversion, hallucinatory bigotry and appeasement of terror could be broken instantly if the big lies that sustain it were exposed for the malevolent fictions that they are. Yet remarkably, Israel never stands up and delivers the necessary home truths about the history of the region and the cowardly and vicious behaviour of its ‘friends’.

There are various reasons for this. First, vulnerable as it is, it needs all the allies it can get – particularly America – in order to survive. These ‘friends’, false as they may be, are nevertheless better than enemies; and they provide considerable ballast -- in their own interests, let it never be overlooked -- against Israel’s declared foes. So that’s one very good reason why Israel has bitten its lip and proclaimed deep friendship with these treacherous western nations.

Next, and scarcely less important, is what can only be described as the psychopathology arising from Israel’s beleaguered existence. After eight decades of military siege, Israel suffers from what might be described as a collective ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ – identifying to some extent at least with the mindset of its abusers.

At the same time, Israel believes the moral rightness of its cause is so overwhelmingly obvious it cannot grasp that others don’t see it that way, let alone view its Arab aggressors as the victims of Israel: such an appalling inversion of reality and justice is simply too outrageous for it to take on board.

As for the need to make the case again and again for the Jewish entitlement to the land, Israelis protest – not unreasonably – why they alone should have to justify their existence when no other country, however artificial or contested, such as Pakistan, for example, is expected to do so.

Even more significant is the fact that, as a result of the Holocaust in Europe and the egregious betrayal of the Jews by the British in Palestine (the perfidious capitulation to Arab terrorism which is the true historic cause of the whole enduring Middle East problem) successive Israeli governments have written off Britain and Europe as irredeemably bigoted and thus impervious to any reasoned or moral argument about the situation of the Jewish people. So they won’t make the case.

However understandable any of these reasons may once have been, they have not only had catastrophic consequences but are now superseded by the new reality. Israel assumed that America would remain its staunch friend. It believed that because, first, the vast bulk of the American people supported Israel, and second because it assumed that any US administration would realise that Israel was the bulwark against a hostile Arab world (forgetting how indifferent or even hostile certain US Presidents had been in the past). Now we can see how short-sighted, foolish and arrogant those assumptions were. Obama has now demonstrated beyond doubt that he is Israel’s enemy – and much worse than that, he is turning the great-hearted American people against it.

So with Iran about to manufacture its genocide bomb, the course of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is now clear. He must speak over the heads of Obama and his administration to the great mass of the American people. He must tell them very plainly the truth of what is happening and the way in which their country is being turned into an ally of evil against justice, aggressor against victim. And beyond America, he must now state in blunt and unmistakeable terms the grotesque reality of what Israel’s ‘friends’ in Britain and Europe, along with America, are now doing: uniquely rewarding those who wish to destroy a sovereign state, and punishing their victims.

For sure, speaking out like this is not in the diplomatic rule-book. The idea of telling the truth would doubtless have the mandarins of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office reaching for the smelling salts. But it’s diplomacy that has brought the Middle East to this terrible impasse, and it’s diplomacy that threatens to facilitate yet more mass murder of the innocent. Netanyahu must take his courage in his hands and finally speak public truth to unjust and coercive power at this moment of such grave peril, not just for Israel but for the world.

When the U.S. is once again "punishing" Israel . . .
. . . it is a time to remember
(Click on the above link)

Monday, February 15, 2010

Obama, Settlements, and the Missing Two-State-Solutions

President Barack Obama’s long-awaited speech to the Muslim World in Cairo had some important, positive elements in it. He is to be commended for that.

Among other things, he spelled out the need for Arabs and other Muslims to get a handle on their own extremists; defined, then stressed, the importance of true democracy while speaking in a nation run by modern-day Pharaohs; emphasized the importance of equal rights for women; and so forth.

When speaking of the need for all peoples to get along, the President even dared to speak the word "Copt"—once...then dropped it like a hot potato. But this, too, was sort of courageous—if short-lasting—given the extreme touchiness of the subject. After all, this wasn’t Israel he was speaking in—nor poor Arabs—er Palestinians—he was crying about.

The Copts, after all, were/are the millions of native people who were conquered and forcibly Arabized—like much of the rest of the Middle East—after the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions.

Unlike Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-"Peoples of the Book(primarily Christians and Jews)," Copts were not given an ultimatum to convert to Islam en masse or die (yet many, indeed, have been murdered).

The latter Ahl al-Kitab above were allowed to live as long as they accepted their subjugated status as dhimmis—"protected" people...that is, as long as they paid their special taxes and such to their Arab Muslim masters. Know your place, and it was possible to prosper.

The Uncle Tom Copt supreme, the late President Sadat’s Foreign Minister and later Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, offered that Israel must consent to the same Arabization if it wanted to be accepted in the "Arab World." I don’t think you want to know my feelings about such "acceptance."

Now, of course, this all begs the question—or at least should...

Why was there only one brief word by our President about Copts—without defining their plight or saying anything else about them—but, unabashedly later, he felt free to lead the Arab choir in taking Israel to task about the plight of the "Palestinians (mostly Arabs whose families came from somewhere else—despite their taqiyyah, legitimate lying to the Infidel—tales of woe)?

There are more native Copts in Egypt than Palestinian (however you define that) Arabs.

I understand the Arabs’ demand that virtually the whole region be seen as just their own—purely Arab patrimony as they tell it. But why does an American President have to play along with this subjugating mindset ? He mentioned the word "Darfur" also. Does he also not know who the perpetrators of the Sudan’s genocidal actions are? But, again, one word...and dropped—like Copt—like a hot potato.

While it was nice to hear the President lecture the Muslim world about the Holocaust, he played right into their hands once again—at least those, unlike Ahmadinejad of Iran and the President’s good buddy, Mahmoud Abbas, who do not deny that it ever happened.

The Arab believers’ typical answer is, why should we have to pay for the sins of Europe?

Now, there was a way that Mr. Obama could have handled the subject correctly that would have been light years better—if he had really wanted to. But that’s another point where his attempt at courage failed him.

One half of Israel’s Jews are from refugee families from the Arab/Muslim World. Over another million more of these folks live in France, America, and elsewhere—the refugees hardly anyone ever talks about. They were known as kilab yahud—Jew dogs—and, like Copts (only worse), also never knew what the morrow would bring living as dhimmis amid Arab Muslim masters. Massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, constant humiliations, and so forth were certainly not unknown to the killers of Prophets and the sons of apes and pigs.

While the President once again lectured about those allegedly horrid Israeli settlements (how dare a Jew demand to once again be allowed to live in Judea?), which we’ll get to shortly, why was he silent about millions of native Kurds in Syria and Imazighen/Berbers in North Africa who have had their own languages and cultures outlawed and have been slaughtered if they dare to protest? The latter have been told that they can’t even name their children with their own native names and must use Arab Islamic ones instead. But, let’s all complain about settlements instead...

Why demand a roadmap for the Arabs’ state # 22 (second, not first, in the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine—Arab Jordan being created after 1922 on some 80% of the total area)—but not demand likewise for some thirty-five million truly stateless, non-Arab Kurds or justice for tens of millions of non-Arab Imazighen?

The President’s focus on Muslim extremism was indeed important, but why did he yield to the assertion that the Arabs’ demand for their additional state—nearly two dozen in total— was somehow equivalent to the Jews’ demand that their own sole, resurrected nation not be destroyed in granting that Arab wish?

Mr. Obama can whisper or shout sweet pleasantries all that he wants to about a two-state solution (at least referring to Jews and Arabs—forget about any rights for those others and more mentioned above), but he knows full well that that Saudi Peace (of the grave) Plan he said Israel would be crazy not to accept calls for Israel to be inundated by millions of so-called "returning" Arab refugees, raised on murderous Jew-hatred for decades, and for Israel to return to its pre-’67 , nine-mile wide Auschwitz/armistice line—not border—existence.

In other words— a plan to convert Israel into another Arab state..."peacefully," the Saudi Peace Plan in a nutshell. That’s why, to this date, Abbas—the alleged good cop—swears he’ll never recognize a Jewish State of Israel.

Blown buses bring bad, there’s more than one way to skin the Jewish cat (especially with America supplying the pliers)!

Now think about this a minute...

President Obama demands that Jews stop building for normal growth in Jewish population centers resurrected in Judea and Samaria—aka only in the past century as "the West Bank." He includes Jerusalem in this too. The area, by the way, is non-apportioned territory of the Mandate—open to settlement by Arabs and Jews alike...not "Palestinian territory" as is frequently claimed. Jews lived and owned property there until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s.

After the Arab attempt on Israel’s life failed in 1967, the architects of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 did not expect Israel to return to the vulnerable ’49 armistices line of the status quo ante.

242 called for the creation of secure and recognized borders to replace those lines, and any Israeli withdrawal at all was to be in the context of true peace treaties—not hudna schmudna cease fires. The aim was to give Israel some semblance of defensible borders, which it never had before—a constant temptation to those who would cut it in half in an armored attack, and so forth. Arabs had indeed already tried this before.

Here’s Britain’s Lord Caradon, chief architect of the final draft of 242, on the matter:

We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the ’the’ in, we did not say ’all ’ the territories deliberately. We all knew - that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.

President Lyndon Johnson summarized the situation this way on June 19, 1967:

" A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before outbreak of war) was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities." He then called for "new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war."

President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982:

"In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel’s population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

And in 1988, Secretary of State George Shultz declared...

"Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders."

So, are ya ready?

Here’s my question to President Obama and the rest of the non-Arab world, lecturing Israel in Cairo and elsewhere non-stop. I leave out Arabs because they don’t accept a 9-mile wide Jewish State of Israel (but claim some two dozen "Arab" states—most created out of non-Arab peoples’ territory—for themselves), so nix any idea of them accepting anything bigger:

Where is Israel to get that territorial compromise over the disputed territories 242 promises if not in those "settlements" Mr. Obama complains about in a very small portion of Judea and Samaria?

I repeat...Israel was not expected to pull back to the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it by the United Nations after it turned back the deadly assault of a half dozen Arab armies on it upon its rebirth in 1948. As would come to happen far too often later, the U.N. only stepped in after the Jews had turned the tide. It did nothing but watch when Israel was immediately attacked. Likewise, it withdrew its peacekeeping force in Sinai as soon as Egypt’s Nasser said to do so—after the latter set up his blockade of Israel at the Straits of Tiran—a casus belli.

America and other nations have fought wars and acquired territories thousands of miles away from home in the name of their national defense and security interests.

Is it really that hard for an intelligent American President to understand that Israel lives in a very nasty neighborhood and so requires a bit more depth to buffer itself from its committed, would-be executioners—no matter how much whitewash he pours over them?

The settlements issue Mr. Obama implies is the equivalent to Arabs not blowing Jews apart really comes down to this...

Given the situation Israel constantly faces (look at a map of the world...I dare you to find Israel without using a magnifying glass), does it not have a right to have a border which makes it wider in mileage than the distance Michelle Obama has to travel to buy shoes at the local shopping mall?

Finally, please watch for my book coming out shortly on these very issues and more, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East—The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective.

by Gerald A. Honigman

6 June 2009

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Lebanon in Clutch of Iran-Supported Hizbullah

Lebanon Backs Hizbullah against Israel - Zeina Karam

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said Wednesday his government will support Hizbullah if a new war breaks out with Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told Israel's Army Radio, "As prime minister, [Hariri] is simply a hostage of Hizbullah, which has veto power in his Cabinet." Like previous governments, Hariri's government endorsed Hizbullah's right to keep its weapons and has been loath to take any strong action against the group for fear of sparking a crisis. (AP)

Click on Lebanon Backs Hizbullah against Israel

Tuesday, December 01, 2009


by Bill Warner

Bill Warner asserts that "Israel is losing the propaganda war, hasbarah, and for a very good reason." Israelis are not inclined to deal with propaganda because they would have to examine Islam. They would have to "face the facts that the Koran and the Sunna (the actions and words of Mohammed) are filled with invectives against the Jews." They would have to grasp that "... when the Jews of Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet they were all enslaved, exiled, murdered and robbed — all acts of jihad. These were not historical acts, but perfect examples of Islamic action towards Jews models prescribed for Muslims to follow up to the present time." Jews also need to understand that resurgent Islam isn't just targetting them. "[T]he Israel/Palestinian conflict is no different than the jihad in Kashmir, India, the Philippines, or in dozens of fronts in Africa" but global jihad does target Jews, and this has to be acknowledged before intelligent and incisive action can be taken. Praying for some flabby peace won't work. People don't fight effectively against a threat until they acknowledge the threat is real.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Sh't-heels of the U.S. Administration

. . . and the One-in-chief:

Thanks to
Bare Naked Islam

Monday, November 16, 2009

Jews and BNP Member Site

BNP (British National Party) member website on veiled antisemite Long Beach State psychology prof's 3-volume work on "Blame it on the Jews." at

The website of Red Squirrel
Proud to be a member of the British National Party. This is a personal blog and the views expressed are not necessarily those of the British National Party or it's members. View my complete profile

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Austrian Bastards Still Despise Jews

[quoting Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs]

Jews still have to put up with this dreck. Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany as many believe....

Israeli wins gold in fencing; Austrian hosts don't play 'Hatikva' Israeli fencer Daria Strelnikov won the gold medal at the cadet's fencing world championship in Austria Saturday night. However, as the 14-year-old athlete stood at the podium waiting to hear the Israeli national anthem, she was greeted by a disturbing quiet.

Strelnikov and a fellow teammate on the podium decided to fill in the silence by singing Hatikva themselves. They were joined by their coach, and other supporting voices in the crowd.
If anyone grabs video of this, I'd like to see it.


My Comment:

You can take the Nazis out of Austria, but can you take Austria out of Nazist Jew-Hatred?