The Obama administration is receiving a well-deserved hammering for orchestrating the UN’s fresh assault on Israel. Most refreshing is a good deal of that hammering is being delivered by an infuriated Israel, whose representatives haven’t flinched in slamming the U.S. for its betrayal. They are learning for the first time, or perhaps re-learning for the umpteenth time, a doctrine taught by Revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky: the principle of resistance.
The Likud Party which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads purports to draw inspiration from Jabotinsky and to faithfully follow his teachings. Banners depicting Jabotinsky fly at every Likud event. Yet, in his many years in office, Netanyahu has seemed less a devotee of Jabotinsky than a disciple of Dale Carnegie, who famously said, “You can’t win an argument.” Netanyahu and his government haven’t won any arguments when it comes to Jewish rights in Israel’s heartland. Indeed, they haven’t tried. Instead, they’ve chosen to manage the problem. We see the fruits of that strategy: Resolution 2334.
Ironically, it was the Prime Minister’s father, Prof. Ben-Zion Netanyahu, who offered one of the best analyses of Jabotinsky’s thinking in a 1981 essay that was reprinted in his last book, The Founding Fathers of Zionism. Ben-Zion points out that Jabotinsky’s greatest contribution to Jewish thinking was this: “He taught the doctrine of resistance to a people who had not known what resistance meant for hundreds of years.”
What did this mean in political terms? “Vigorous resistance to any concession of any right whatsoever.” Ben-Zion Netanyahu writes: “After all, if you have a right, and concede that right, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, even if out of supposedly ‘pragmatic calculations,’ then what is taken away from you is, simply, theft. Hence, you have fundamentally surrendered to robbery, even if you pretend to having been magnanimous.”
Think of the prime minister’s approach in light of the above. When facing election, he speaks out against a two-state solution as he did in 2008 and in 2015. Afterwards, he hastily backs down under U.S. and international pressure, reaffirming his support for two states. Instead of vigorous resistance, Netanyahu chooses the path of least resistance.
Although describing himself as a disciple of Jabotinsky, Netanyahu acts more like Jabotinsky’s nemesis, Chaim Weizmann. The strategy of Weizmann and the Laborites was “a dunam and a cow, and then another dunam and another cow”––a dunam being an area of land (4 equaling 1 acre). The idea was to avoid tipping off the Arabs while creating facts on the ground that would make a Jewish state inevitable. Weizmann even denied he wanted a Jewish state. The strategy was disingenuous, fooled no one and cost the Jews dearly politically, as the British, who favored the Arabs from the start, gradually stripped away Jewish rights.
Instead of a dunam and a cow, Netanyahu and the Likud Party build a settlement and another settlement, this while broadcasting their support for a two-state solution which grants Arabs political rights to the land the Jews are building on. It’s a crazy contradiction. Jabotinsky offers a way out. Resist efforts to strip away Jewish rights. Boldly defend Judea and Samaria as Jewish land. Declare that there will never be an Arab state in Israel’s ancient home. The real problem is that Israel’s leaders are too clever by half. If they can’t speak candidly, they should pull down those Jabotinsky pictures at Likud meetings. It’s not his image that’s important but his teachings, and without the one what’s the point of the other? Put up supermodel Bar Rafaeli. Her image will have the same impact on policy—that is to say, none—but she at least is easier on the eyes.
Full Story »
The vicious condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council on December 23, 2016 is a watershed moment in U.S.-UN relations––albeit not as President Obama hoped. Following the vote of fourteen in favor and one American abstention, Palestinian representative Riyadh Mansour and American Ambassador Samantha Power exchanged a telling handshake. Evidently, President Obama believes that he has put one over on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the incoming Trump administration. But here’s another possibility: treachery at the UN will not be cost free.
Let’s be absolutely clear about what has just happened. The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now––to the applause of the assembled––the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.
Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.
This is not just any lie. This is the big lie of modern antisemitism. This is the lie that drove a Palestinian teenager in June of this year to creep into the home of 13-year old Hallel Ariel and butcher her with a knife in the back as she slept in her bed.
The bed was located in the “settlement” of Kiryat Arba, on Arab-claimed territory whose ownership–by agreement–is subject to final status negotiations instead of back-stabbing UN resolutions. So to skip the UN-eze, today’s hate fest was diplomatic terrorism.
Obama’s failure to veto the resolution is at odds with long-standing American foreign policy that has insisted on peace through negotiations, and not UN-fiat, as the only way to ensure genuine and long-lasting recognition and cooperation. His excuse for throwing bipartisan wisdom overboard was delivered by Ambassador Power, in one of the most disingenuous statements in the history of American diplomacy.
Power began by likening Obama’s deed to Ronald Reagan’s treatment of Israel. She repeatedly claimed that the move was nothing new and “in line” with the past, though “historic” is how speaker-after-speaker and the President of the Council himself described it. She noted “Israel has been treated differently than other nations at the United Nations” and then doubled-down on more of the same. She complained that Council “members suddenly summon the will to act” when it comes to Israel, after the White House had actively pushed the frantic adoption of the resolution with less than 48 hours’ notice.
Full Story »
Professor of Jewish History Yosef Yerushalmi observed that “Zakhor!” “Remember” is enjoined in the Bible 169 times.
Tragically, the behavior of most Jewish leaders reveals that they remember nothing of relevance to a Jewish future. They have forgotten that modern Zionism arose in response to an anti-Semitism that showed itself impervious to the so-called European “Enlightenment.” They have forgotten that it soon became apparent that only Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews, could provide the motivation for even secular Jews to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a state. They have forgotten how prescient the early Zionists were, for their worst forebodings were realized: millions died for lack of the state that could have offered them refuge from their murderers. They have forgotten how, in the wake of the UN’s vote for partition, the reborn state of Israel held on against what seemed impossible odds and went on to create a vibrant, free, prosperous, innovative state in a region mired in chaos and despair. They have forgotten that an umbilical cord attaches them to Israel. They have forgotten—if they ever knew–the extent to which their standing in the United States depends on Israel’s existence, and how vulnerable they will be if Jews once again become a people without a land.
In the early 1970s, historian and rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, as President of the American Jewish Congress, anticipated some of this “forgetting.” He believed that Israel would soon achieve peace with its neighbors and at that point the divergence of Israel’s interests from those of diaspora Jews would become obvious and Israel would lose much of its salience for Jews abroad. Hertzberg did not foresee what has in fact happened: that far from reconciling themselves to Israel’s existence, Arabs would spearhead an increasingly successful world-wide movement to delegitimize her. Nor did he foresee that a plethora of Jewish organizations would emerge, not simply indifferent to Israel but actively hostile to her interests (J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Ameinu, the New Israel Fund among others). Nor did he foresee that for the most part mainstream Jewish organizations would transfer their enthusiasm to a variety of trendy left-wing causes, from climate change to gay rights to abortion to gun control, with Israel a distant fifth or sixth on the agenda, if that.
Take the Anti-Defamation League, the organization originally established to fight anti-Semitism. Jonathan Bronitsky has written an informative report on the ADL from the “inside.” Selected to participate in the ADL’s Glass Leadership Institute, a ten month program for a select group of young professionals to be closely involved in the organization, he was unsettled to discover that “the ADL has dedicated itself more and more to matters of social justice in America (e.g. immigration, women’s reproductive health, economic privilege)…[to] advance political agendas that have nothing to do with defending the Jewish people.” When he merely raised questions, says Bronitsky, “the wrath that I encountered, time and time again, was stunning. Are upper middle class, highly educated American Jews so isolated from non-liberal thoughts that even the slightest contestation of their most firmly held beliefs is enough to trigger landslides of emotional chaos?” Bronitzky found the intellectual dishonesty, the pretense that the organization did not tout the Democratic party agenda, particularly disheartening. “It is difficult to convey just how intellectually insulting, how patronizing it was to be told by winking staff members that their organization is nonpartisan.”
The ADL, like most Jewish organizations, is willfully blind to the growing distancing of the Democratic Party, as it marches left, from Israel and Jews. The favorite among Democrats to head the Democratic National Committee has been Keith Ellison, for many years an acolyte of Louis Farrakhan, of “Judaism is a gutter religion” fame. Interestingly it was not Ellison’s hostility to Israel that bothered ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt (who initially supported him). It was Ellison’s suggestion in a 2010 speech (that belatedly came to light) that Jews dictated American Mideast policy that Greenblatt found “disqualifying”—anti-Semitism focused directly on American Jews struck too close to home.
Full Story »
Editor’s note: This is a reminder that terrorist attacks are merely the tip of the iceberg. The Muslim invasion overturns the existing way of life in European countries. Women, for example, fear to dress and move around as they used to do. Mamou describes another hidden consequence of the invasion.
What is reality in France today?
Violence. It is spreading. Not just terrorist attacks; pure gang violence. It instills a growing feeling of insecurity in hospitals, at schools, in the streets––even in the police. The media does not dare to say that this violence is coming mainly from Muslim gangs––the “youths,” as they say in the French media, to avoid naming who they are. A climate of civil war, however, is spreading visibly in the police, schools, hospitals and politics.
The most jolting evidence of this malaise was to see more than 500 French police officers demonstrating with police cars and motorcycles on the night of October 17, without the backing of labor unions, without authorization, on the Champs Elysées in Paris. According to the daily, Le Figaro, “the Interior Ministry was in panic,” frightened by a possible coup: “Police blocked access to the Avenue Marigny, which runs beside the Presidential Palace and overlooks the Place Beauvau.”
On October 18, when Jean-Marc Falcone, director-general of National Police, met the leaders of the protest, he was surrounded by hundreds of police officers urging him to resign.
The main cause of their anger seems primarily the violence often directed against police, and terrorist attacks. On the terrorist level, two policemen were stabbed to death in Magnanville in June 2016 by a Muslim extremist, Larossi Aballa. This spring, more than 300 police officers and gendarmes were injured by demonstrators. In May, police unions demonstrated in the streets of Paris to protest “anti-police hatred.”
This autumn, the last straw was an attack on a police patrol in the Paris suburb of Viry-Châtillon. Four officers were injured when a group of around 15 “youths” (Muslim gang-members) swarmed their cars in the town and hurled rocks and firebombs at them. Two policemen were badly burned; one had to be placed in an induced coma. The same scenario took place a few days later: a police patrol was ambushed in another no-go zone in the “sensitive” area of Val-Fourré.
Police were also aggrieved by Bernard Cazneuve, the Minister of Interior, who called the attackers “sauvageons” (“little wild ones”). Police and opposition politicians replied that the attackers were not “little wild ones but criminals who attacked police to kill.”
“Police are seen as an occupying force,” declared Patrice Ribeiro of the Synergie officers union. “It is not surprising that violence is spiking.”
On October 18, Le Figaro launched an online poll online with one question: “Do you approve the protest by policemen?” Ninety percent of the 50,000 respondents answered “yes.”
Since then, police demonstrations have spread to other cities. More than a month after the start of the discontent, police officers were still protesting in every big city. On November 24, two hundred police officers demonstrated in Paris between Place de la Concorde and the Arc de Triomphe, to express their “anger.” Police in civilian clothes, some wearing orange armbands, some hidden under a scarf or hood, supported by citizens, gathered in the evening at the Place de la Concorde, before walking the length of the Champs Elysée up to the Arc de Triomphe, where they formed a human chain around the monument and sang La Marseillaise (France’s national anthem).
Full Story »
The latest outrage at the United-in-Hate-for-Israel Nations is the culmination of decades of Israel bashing in that corrupt and corrupting institution. The abstention of the United States should come as no surprise under the Obama administration which has exhibited overt antipathy to Israel since January 2009.
The irony is that among those who are wringing hands are those who are most directly responsible for the travesty itself. The two-state groupies who argued for more Israeli appeasement despite incontrovertible evidence that each territorial concession was followed by escalated terrorism are the culprits. They ignored and air-brushed the rain of rockets from Gaza after Israel surrendered the area. They ignored and air-brushed the unprecedented reign of terror in Israel cities that followed the Oslo and Wye Plantation concessions. They ignored and air-brushed the desecration of Jewish shrines and synagogues in every town in the West Bank that was deeded to Palestinian Arab control. They ignored and air-brushed the jihadist rants and celebration of murderers that were promoted by Abbas while they criticized Israel and turned blind eyes and deaf ears to the hypocrisy and overt anti-Semitism behind all the boycott and divest movements.
Did those useless idiots not see where all this was headed?
So now they are outraged–rather mildly–over what is the natural outcome of policies that strip Israel of legitimate historic and strategic rights to buttress a chimeric vision of peace. They and the Israeli left should spare us their caterwauling and hang their heads in shame.
Full Story »
At a social gathering where we learned of the death of Astronaut/Senator(ret.) John Glenn someone remarked that there are no more heroes. Indeed, John Glenn’s history is heroic. John Herschel Glenn Jr. was an American aviator and engineer, who became the first American to orbit the Earth, circling three times.
There are myriad examples of individual heroic acts. World heroes are those who break barriers and change the course of history.
Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky comes to mind. Sharansky was born and raised in Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union, where he received a degree in Mathematics.
He was an early critic of human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and in 1973 when he was refused an exit visa to Israel on “security grounds” emerged as a leader of the “refuseniks”––Jews who petitioned for a right to emigrate to Israel
Sharansky escalated his criticism and in 1977 a Soviet newspaper alleged that he was collaborating with the CIA. He was arrested and in 1978 sentenced to thirteen years on the false charge of “espionage for the United States.” In the courtroom, Sharansky defiantly looked away from the prosecutors and jury and said: “To the court I have nothing to say––to my wife and the Jewish people I say ‘Next Year in Jerusalem’”.
He endured nine years of imprisonment while his wife Avital and the Soviet Jewry movement organized international pressure. Even after his release on February 11, 1986 (he arrived in Jerusalem the next day) Sharansky did not rest. His efforts culminated in a massive rally in Washington on December 7, 1987 when 250,000 people gathered on a wintry day where visiting Soviet President Gorbachev could not miss them.. Among the speakers was George H.W. Bush, who was vice president at the time. In his speech, he echoed the words of Reagan at the Berlin Wall, “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “Let these people go. Let them go.”
Sharansky and other heroic “refuseniks” spearheaded a movement that freed close to two million Russian Jews, among them Avigdor Lieberman, now Israel’s defense minister.
While the story of Soviet Jewry has a happy ending, evil never sleeps and KGB tactics are apparent in the Netherlands, where another hero, Geert Wilders, comes to mind.
He was elected as city councilor in Utrecht in 1997 but in 2002 rejected his party’s support for Turkish entry into the European Union. In 2004 when the film maker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a radical Moslem, he set up the Dutch Freedom Party which called for a ban on burqas. He won nine seats in the Dutch parliament. In 2006 he said to a national broadcaster: “I believe we have been too tolerant of the intolerant. We should learn to become intolerant of the intolerant. People like Mohammed Bouyeri who killed Theo van Gogh, they should be arrested under administrative detention for the safety of Dutch families.”
In 2011 Wilders faced a Dutch Court on charges of “inciting hate” for saying that Islam is violent by nature, and calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and the Qur’an. He faced a possible fine or up to a year in jail. But the court ruled that although his statements were offensive they were part of a legitimate debate and acquitted him. A month later, British officials denied Wilders entry into the United Kingdom, designating him “a threat to the public order and public harmony.”
Full Story »
Editor: Rael Jean Isaac
Editorial Board: Ruth King, Rita Kramer
Outpost is distributed free to Members of Americans for a Safe Israel Annual membership: $100.
Americans for a Safe Israel 1751 Second Ave. (at 91st Street) New York, NY 10128 Tel (212) 828-2424 / fax (212) 828-1717
Online now: Jabotinsky Part 3: Revisionism or log in at www.zionism101.org
In “Jabotinsky Part 3: Revisionism” Jabotinsky founds the Revisionist party to press the World Zionist Organization to fight harder for Jewish claims in Palestine. After a long, fruitless struggle within the Zionist establishment, Jabotinsky decides to go his own way. He creates the New Zionist Organization.There are already 43 free videos on the site, covering everything from Zionism’s early years to Christian Zionism to Israel’s War of Independence.
Full Story »
Israeli reactions to Donald Trump’s stunning presidential election victory have ranged from the apotheotic to the apocalyptic, the outer limits of a broad base of opinion grounded in shaded optimism.
Aryeh Deri’s optimism was forged in another place. The Interior Minister and chairman of “Shas,” Sephardic (predominantly Moroccan) ultra-Orthodoxy’s parliamentary face, says he sees in the election of the New York real estate magnate and reality TV star a “herald of the coming of the Messiah.” A decidedly political messianic herald to be sure, for unbeknownst to the President-elect, he is the hammer who has been chosen to break Reform and Conservative Judaism’s hold on the U.S. government. “There is no doubt,” Deri avers, “that one can give thanks to God that all those who have damned the Covenant, thinking they could take control over the Land of Israel, have received their blow. If such a miracle can happen,” he adds, “we are really in the era of the birth pangs of the Messiah when everything has been flipped to the good of the Jewish people.”
Projecting a somewhat more earthly grounded version of Deri’s thesis, Moshe Gafni, senior Knesset representative of the mainly Ashkenazic (eastern European) United Torah Judaism party, told Haredi news website Kikar Hashabbat that the Reform and Conservative movements had done themselves irreparable damage with their near uniform identification with a tattered Democratic party. “The Right has risen,” he declared, and Trump is well aware of who worked against his election.
At the opposite pole, visions of impending calamity were being evoked by the “climate change” wing of the Israeli environmental fraternity over Trump’s threat to cancel America’s contribution under the recently concluded “Paris Agreement” toward keeping the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees C for the foreseeable future. Trump considers the agreement “bad for American business” and has called global warming a “hoax.” The threat has Israeli climate changers in eschatological mode, with solar engineer Yosef Abramowitz, whose Energyia Global Capital finances solar construction in Israel and Africa, predicting that a loss of American leadership on climate will doom the West to a hellish combination of “increased fires, extreme drought, rising sea levels and supercharged hurricanes.” “Our children and grandchildren,” he further prophesied, “will suffer from greater air pollution, food scarcity and political turmoil around the globe.”
Wrestling with angels and demons of his own, the Prime Minister was pictured by Jerusalem Post chief political correspondent Gil Hoffman as having a “hard time hiding his joy over the change in power in Washington…He talks and acts like a Republican,” Hoffman observed, “and was obviously overjoyed when Pennsylvania, the state in which he spent his formative years, gave the presidency to Trump.” Never having shared a single day with a Republican president in his 10-plus years at Israel’s helm, the prime minister was quoted by staffers as having remarked ”I want to know what it’s like to serve with a president that has my back.” With Trump, Bibi will be more than getting his wish. Mutual admiration thoroughly informs this relationship. Hoffman described Netanyahu as appearing “downright giddy” in a video congratulating Trump on his victory, declaring him a “great friend of Israel.” Netanyahu accompanied it with a Facebook posting of a video Trump released prior to the 2013 Israeli election praising him as a “great prime minister” and “a winner.”
Full Story »
A New Muslim?
(Jewish?) Anti-Defamation League head Jonathan Greenblatt has declared he will register as a Muslim if there is reinstatement of a national registry of immigrants and visitors from countries where Islamic extremist groups are active. Now there’s a terrific idea. Perhaps Greenblatt will then be eligible to head CAIR or the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Given how far ADL has moved from its ostensible mission of promoting Jewish interests (in practical terms it functions as a wing of the far left of the Democratic Party), Greenblatt’s departure from his current post would be cause for celebration for those who care for Israel and the welfare of American Jews.
Sitting Political Shiva
There has been much coverage of elite campuses where professors suspended classes and students retreated to safe spaces with Play Doh and even therapy dogs to recuperate from the staggering blow of an election in which the deplorables deplorably won. Less remarked, dozens of synagogues have been equally idiotic, organizing gatherings for their flock “to grieve together.” Rolando Matalon, rabbi at Congregation Bnai Jeshurun on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, where one such gathering occurred, told Haaretz: “People feel heartbroken and in disbelief…we need to give people space to hold each other or pray and sing.”
While excoriating the supposed anti-Semitism of Trump, his entourage and his appointments on trivial to non-existent evidence (most of them, including the much maligned Stephen Bannon, have a strong record of support for Israel), these same people show not a shred of concern that, at this writing, the strongly anti-Israel convert to Islam Keith Ellison is favored to become the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Charles Schumer, the incoming Democratic minority leaders, says “I’m not worried about the Israel stuff.” Neither of course are the likes of Rabbi Matalon, an avowed supporter of the Soros-funded anti-Israel J Street. But the synagogue members who care about Israel and are currently foolishly “grieving together” should be very worried about Ellison.
As ZOA chairman Mort Klein has pointed out, Ellison “was a devotee and worked for anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan for many years.” In 2014 he was one of only 8 members of Congress who voted against a bi-partisan bill to provide $225 million to Israel’s Iron dome missile defense system. In 2010 Ellison spearheaded the “Gaza 54” letter to President Obama, false accusing Israel of wreaking “collective punishment” on Gaza residents and demanding that Obama pressure Israel to lift the Gaza blockade. Ellison sought to insert anti-Israel provisions into the 2016 Democratic platform and has ties to radical Moslem anti-Israel groups. Why no political shivas at the prospect of an Ellison at the helm of the DNC?
The shiva-sitters might pause to ponder why, in Israel, the vote was as lopsided for Trump as it was against him within U.S. Jewry. In Arutz Sheva, Larry Gordon reports that of the more than 100,000 American citizens who live in Israel and cast absentee ballots the overwhelming number voted for Trump. The answer is easy: eight years of a hostile Obama administration was enough. For them U.S. policy toward Israel, i.e. the future of the Jewish people, was the decisive issue.
Not that there isn’t cause for concern: Trump keeps coming back to the fantasy that he can solve the Arab-Israel conflict, most recently by sending his son-in-law to do the job!
Keep Your Eye on the Corpses
Writing in the Australian journal Quadrant David Pryce Jones describes the cultural traits within the Arab world that fuel its brutal wars and inability to function as nation-states. He observes that in the post-1945 world, Arabs have been free to build their own societies in accordance with their numbers and hopes. “Instead,” he writes, “they have thrown away such prospects in self-perpetuating and interminable wars and civil wars. Never take your eyes off the corpses is the sole comment outsiders can make about these people who are failing to do justice to themselves, destroying, not creating, in a continuous human tragedy.”
Israel, says Pryce Jones, “is the one exception in the region. Zionism is the national liberation of the Jewish people, and it has enabled them to create a First World nation-state, a centre of excellence in the sciences and the arts. Its democratic institutions incorporate a variety of ethnicities, religious faiths and sects. To give just one example of its inclusiveness, the judge who condemned a President of Israel to prison for sexual misdemeanor is an Arab. Traditionally Muslims have been accustomed to see Jews as second-class people, by nature shameful, and it is intolerable for them and their honour that a Jewish liberation movement should succeed in their midst. Ranging from boycotts and sanctions to outright war, attempts to attack Israel are so many triumphs of ignorance and irrationality, incitements to pile up more corpses, and altogether a standing insult to civilization.”
Full Story »
On Nov. 2 we entered the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration. This document, signed on November 2, 1917 by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, was the first recognition by one of the world’s great powers—in fact at the time the greatest power in the world—of the right of the Jewish people to their national homeland in Palestine.
It was the single most significant step taken in restoring Jewish self-determination in their historic territories. Under the San Remo Resolution three years later, the Balfour Declaration was enshrined in international law, leading inexorably to the 1947 UN partition plan and ultimately to the proclamation of the State of Israel by David Ben Gurion on May 14, 1948.
As Britain, Israel and the free world begin to mark this monumental anniversary, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas demands an apology from the UK.
The man whose constitutional tenure as Palestinian leader expired seven years ago, yet remains in place. The man who raised funds for the 1972 massacre in Munich of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes. The man who misused millions of dollars of international aid intended for the welfare of his people. The man who dismissed as a “fantastic lie” the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust.
This man demands an apology. Of course he does. And in demanding that Britain apologise for a 99-year-old statement supporting a national home for the Jewish people, he exposes his true position, and the true position of all factions of the Palestinian leadership: that the Jewish people have no right to a national home; the Jewish State has no right to exist. According to Abbas, Palestine, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to the Arabs and only to the Arabs.
At a dinner held by the Zionist Federation in London on April 12, 1931, Sir Herbert Samuel, British High Commissioner in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 and the first Jew to govern the historic land of Israel in 2,000 years, said: “In time the Arabs will come to appreciate and respect the Jewish [standpoint]”.
Unfortunately, as Abbas’s demands demonstrate only too clearly, he could not have been more wrong. It is sometimes claimed that Arab violence towards the Jews began with the Balfour Declaration which created in their minds a feeling of betrayal by the British and an apprehension of Arab subjugation under Jewish governance.
Full Story »