Let's blame the Jews

ELDER OF ZIYON: As predicted: Hamas blames Israel for Gaza electricity shortage

On Friday, I reported that Gaza was running out of fuel because of the failure to pay their bills, and I predicted that soon we will see heartbreaking photos out of Gaza that will blame Israel.

Right on schedule, Hamas came through on Twitter:

Even Gazans no longer buy Hamas' lies, as this Gaza-based reporter writes for AllVoices:

Quite frankly, the party responsible for all the crises in the Gaza Strip is Hamas, which has failed in managing Gaza's affairs since it seized it in 2007, because it relied on illegal ways to obtain goods and petroleum through the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.

Last week, Ala al-Rafati, Hamas' economy minister, confirmed that the closure of tunnels since June has cost Gaza around $230 million monthly.

This is the amount that Hamas obtains from taxes imposed on the entry and exit of goods through tunnels.

Unfortunately, Hamas does not spend this amount on Gaza 's population, but only for Hamas' members. This is clear to all the people of Gaza who suffer so much from its rule.

Many people in Gaza are eagerly waiting for Nov. 11. This is the day agreed upon by most of the population of Gaza to demonstrate and call the whole world to help them end Hamas rule in Gaza, which led to a rise in poverty rates and unemployment, in addition to the electricity and water crises.

The $230 million figure is way inflated, Hamas' budget is nowhere near that amount, but Hamas did get most of its revenue from taxing tunnel goods.

And the planned November 11th protests, which we have reported here for a while, will be very interesting indeed. Hamas has been threatening reporters who talk about the anti-Hamas movement in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas says he is working to resolve the fuel crisis, but he seems to be trying to work not with Israel, but with Egypt!

Yasser Wadia, leader of the independent figures in the Gaza Strip, said that President Abbas promised to resolve the crisis within the next few hours, indicating that intensive contacts took place during the past few hours with the leadership in Ramallah and Hamas in Gaza and the Egyptian leadership to solve the electricity crisis.

With regard to contacts with the Egyptian side Wadia said PalPress "We talked with the Egyptians on all matters pertaining to Gaza to overcome the current crisis and return to normal," adding that the Egyptian leadership understands the Supreme command.

He pointed out that Egypt promised to solve the problem of fuel the country in the coming days, saying, "The Egyptians told us clearly that the security problems in the Sinai is what is preventing the arrival of fuel to Gaza."

I find this hard to believe. Egyptians in the Sinai have their own fuel problems and if Egypt starts allowing fuel to Gaza they will riot. This sounds more to me like Egypt is pushing the Gazans off. 

ELDER OF ZIYON: Iran's Supreme Leader: Zionists are behind all intra-Muslim problems

The Hajj message of Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Khamenei says that every single problem in the Muslim world is caused by Zionists and the West. Not a single Muslim is guilty of any crimes, terrorism, civil war, chemical weapons usage, infighting or anything else unseemly - it is all controlled by the expansive network of Zionists and their allies.

I particularly like how he positions the Syrian regime as a Muslim nation when it has been largely secular and anti-Islamist.

...The existence of civil wars, religious and denominational prejudices and political instabilities, the prevalence of cruel terrorism, the emergence of extreme groups and orientations- which like savage tribes in history, cut open the chests of human beings and rip their hearts out with their teeth- the emergence of armed mercenaries who kill women and children, cut off the heads of men and rape women and who do such horrible and disgusting crimes in the name of religion are all the products of the satanic and arrogant plots of foreign intelligence services and their regional agents.

Such plots are implemented in countries in which the ground is prepared before-hand and as a result, they create a disastrous situation for these nations and peoples. In such conditions, it is clear that one cannot expect Muslim nations to remedy their material and spiritual shortcomings and to achieve security, welfare, scientific progress and international dignity which are the results of achieving awakening and finding one's true identity.

These disastrous conditions can abort the progress of Islamic Awakening, destroy the mental awareness which has been created in the world of Islam, drag Muslims- once more- towards stagnation, isolation and decline and consign to oblivion important and fundamental issues such as the liberation of Palestine and other Muslim nations from the transgressions of the USA and Zionism.

The most important cure for this situation can be summarized in two key phrases, both of which are among the clearest lessons of hajj:

First: unity and brotherhood of Muslims under the flag of monotheism.

Second: knowing the enemy and confronting his plans and methods.

Strengthening the spirit of brotherhood and cooperation is a great lesson of hajj. During hajj, even quarrelling and arguing with others is forbidden. During hajj, wearing the same clothes, following the same practices, making the same moves and behaving in a kind way,all mean equality and brotherhood for all those who believe in and rely on monotheism.

This means that Islam strongly rejects any idea and belief which views a number of Muslims and believers in Ka'bah and monotheism as people who are outside the circle of Islam. These orientations which are based on takfirism, which have become playthings in the hands of the treacherous Zionist politicians and their western supporters- commit serious crimes and shed the blood of Muslims and innocent people, and the people who claim to be religious, who call themselves clerics and who fuel the fire of fitna between Shia and Sunni and other denominations- should know that the hajj pilgrimage will thwart their claims.

I, like many Islamic scholars and sympathetic personalities in the Islamic Ummah, announce that any statement or action which fuels the fire of discord among Muslims, any insult to the sacred beliefs of each one of the Muslim denominations and any act of takfirism against Islamic denominations equals serving the camp of atheism and polytheism and betraying Islam. All of these things are haraam.

Knowing the enemy and its methods is the second important factor. First, we should not forget about the existence of a spiteful enemy. Performing the ritual of the stoning of the jamarat during hajj is a symbolic sign of this awareness. Second, we should not make a mistake in knowing the main enemy, who in the present time is global arrogance and the criminal Zionist network.

Third, we should properly identify the methods of this hostile enemy which is creating discord among Muslims, promoting moral and political corruption, threatening and tempting outstanding personalities, exerting economic pressures on all nations and arousing doubts about Islamic beliefs. Moreover, we should identify their agents and those who are, knowingly or ignorantly, dependent on them.

Arrogant governments, headed by the USA, conceal their true character with the help of comprehensive and advanced propaganda tools. By claiming that they support human rights and democracy, they deceive public opinion in different countries. They speak about the rights of all nations while each day Muslim nations feel- with their bodies and souls- the fire of discord more than the past.

For decades, the oppressed Palestinian nation has been receiving strikes as a result of the crimes of the Zionist regime and its supporters. In the countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, terrorism - which originates from the policies of global arrogance and its agents in the region - has ruined the lives of the people.

Syria has come under the attack of arrogant powers and their regional agents because of supporting anti-Zionist orientations and it has experienced a bloody civil war. In Bahrain and Myanmar, Muslims have been ignored and their enemies are supported. Other nations are threatened by the USA and its allies with military attacks, economic sanctions and different acts of sabotage. Taking a general look at all these countries can reveal to all people throughout the world the true face of these leaders of global arrogance.
....
I ask Allah the Exalted to bestow peace on Muslims and to foil the plots of the enemies. ...

More in an upcoming post about how the symbolic "stoning of the devil" during Hajj has now become a symbolic "stoning of Zionists."

YID WITH LID: The "Nation" Uses LaRouche Nut-Job To Blame Obama's Syrian War Drumbeat on the Jooooooos

According to The Nation, Obama's push for a war on Syria is all about Israel and the "Israel Lobby"

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.

By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.

Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.

If the above sounds familiar there's a reason. Back in 2002 and 2002 Anti-Semites such as Pat Buchanan blamed Israel and the Jooos for Bush’s move toward an Iraq war even though the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, was advising president Bush to stay out of Iraq. The LaRouche "movement" also blamed the Jews (they substituted the term Zionist) for the Iraq war.

The author of this piece, Bob Dreyfuss is a former employee of the Anti-Semitic LaRouche cult

Though Dreyfuss officially left the employ of LaRouche (in the sense that he does not currently write for LaRouche's publications, at least not under his own byline), his politics clearly haven't changed much from the tinfoil hat variety characteristic of the 8-time fringe presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist. Dreyfuss still spends his days feverishly slumped over his keyboard warning of neocon conspiracies and shilling for authoritarian regimes--hallmarks of any good LaRouchite. Now, he just gets published in ostensibly respectable magazines like The Nation.

The LaRouche gang has a long history of Antisemitism, for example below are some of the LaRouche bigots quotes about Jews:

"From Ezra onwards, and even before, Hebrewism was an assimilationist doctrine developed to provide special juridical status (and ideological self-image) for a caste of merchant-userers within a pre-capitalist society."

"Judaism is not a true religion, but only a half-religion, a curious  appendage and sub-species of Christianity."

"Judaism is ideological abstraction of the secular life of  Christianity's Jew, the Roman merchant-userer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience."

"Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity,  entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and  secular life of Christianity. In short, a self- sustaining Judaism  never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise,  it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything  saleable has been marketed to the Goyim."

Dryfuss gives no proof of his secret Obama/Israel plot to slap the hand of Iran by going after Assad. In fact it makes no sense from Israel's perspective.

In 2011 it was Israel best interests for the US stay out of the Syrian "civil" war. Any entry in this civil war would inflame the situation and most importantly divert attention from Israel’s first, second and third priority... the Iranian threat.

The Iranian threat has been Prime Minister Netanyahu's priority for over a decade, even before he became Premier, why would he want to confuse the situation by pushing a Syrian attack two years ago? The reality is that it would only happen in Bob Dreyfuss' imagination.

Dreyfuss talks about the nefarious Israel lobby urging congress to support the Syrian action--you know, those Jooos who control the government, media, Hollywood, banks and most Burger King franchises. Dreyfus may mean AIPAC, which has announced it will be lobbying congress in support of the president. What he neglects to mention is AIPAC has shown itself to be a tool of Obama not Israel. Perhaps he remembers their silence (as will as the silence of much of that nefarious Jewish lobby) while the president was pushing anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

The sad truth is that much of the "traditional" Jewish leadership has abdicated their responsibility to the Jewish community to become tools for the progressive leadership of the country, like the ADL for example. In this case AIPAC is not acting for Israel but for its buddies at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they have done so many times before.

Even though they have been silent publicly as Obama has beaten the war drums over the past two weeks, Israel has supported the opinion that the US had to act--but not because of Iran. Israel understands that in the Middle East you must back up what you say lest you become the target.

As far as Iran, Obama's Syria waffling convinced most Israelis including those in the government, that whether the US attacks Syria or not, Israel will have to take out the Iranian nuclear installations itself — or learn to live with a nuclear Iran led by a fanatical Islamist leadership that seeks Israel's destruction. The Israeli government realized a long time ago that when it comes to Iran--they are alone.

Just as the LaRouche movement did in the ramp up to the Iraq war, one of it's leftovers, Mr. Dreyfuss falling back on old reliable--blaming the Jooooos for Obama's push into Syria. If he looked carefully he would realize that most Jews (like most American's) oppose any action in Syria--even the conservative pro-Israel ones such as this blogger.

ELDER OF ZIYON: Jordan's king says Palestinian issue the "crux of the conflict" in the region

From Ammon News:

His Majesty King Abdullah II said the Middle East was facing enormous challenges that threatened efforts to bring about peace, security and stability in the region, warranting a concerted global effort to stop the region from sliding into further violence and turbulence and enable its people to realize a better future.

He told the annual Sun Valley Economic Forum in the American state of Idaho that the stalemate in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and the continuation of the Syrian crisis and its repercussions were the two key challenges threatening the future of peace and stability.

The King reiterated that the Palestinian issue was the crux of the conflict in the region, stressing the need for action to find a just and lasting settlement according to the two-state solution – an independent and viable Palestinian state on 1967 borders and living in peace and security alongside Israel.

Yup - Egyptian chaos, Syria civil war and resulting refugee crisis, Lebanon's infighting, water shortages through the region, the rise of Islamism, Jordan's own energy crisis - all of those problems are dependent on creating yet another Arab state and making Israel even tinier than it is.

Blaming Israel for anything is really a hard habit to break for Arab leaders.

The real question is how come no one at this economic forum seemed to challenge the king on his idiocy.

Then again, it appears that he is just repeating the Obama administration/s Middle East strategy. Thereligion of linkage is as powerful as ever.

ELDER OF ZIYON: Today's Arab Muslim antisemitism is brought to you by Syria

They may have other problems, but its always a crowd-pleasing idea to get back to the basics of attacking Jews:

Following are excerpts from a sermon at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, which aired on Syrian TV on June 28, 2013.

Syrian preacher: Let us take a look at the history of mankind, which has recorded the true nature of the Jews, the slayers of prophets and violators of agreements. It shows how they have tried, since pre-Islamic times, to fragment, divide, and rip apart the Arab and Islamic nation.

In an effort to gain influence in the world and to realize their desires, the Jews have set two basic goals. Listen, oh Muslims, and beware of what is happening in Syria – in that land with steadfast people and leadership.

They have two basic goals. The first is to divide the nations of the world, to pit them one against the other, and to spark war and civil strife among them. The second goal is to rip apart the nations of the world, destroying their notions, moral values, and codes, and making them stray from the path of Allah.

That is what they did throughout the ages all over the world. Oh nation of Islam, the Jews have been tearing this nation apart for many years.
[…]
What is happening today in this steadfast fortress [Syria], and in the Middle East in general, is nothing new. It was premeditated.

We are a nation in slumber, a nation that does not study the books of history, and has not studied what its enemies are plotting and devising against it. They kindled the spark of civil strife in Palestine and in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq, then in Egypt, and after that, in Syria.

Don't forget that it was also a Jewish plot to create these nations that the Jews are now dividing.

And the first paragraph is essentially the plot of the Khaybar miniseries that will be seen by many, many more people than watch this preacher.

Sudanese cleric blames Jews for Boston bombing, Texas explosion, Iran earthquake And 9/11. And the tsunami. I can't wait for the next hurricane season.

Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Sheik Abd Al-Jalil Al-Karouri, which aired on April 19, 2013:

Abd Al-Jalil Al-Karouri: The most important political events of the week were the Boston earthquake and the Texas earthquake, which joined it yesterday… Or rather, the bombings in Boston and in Texas, as well as the Iran earthquake. In short, the peculiar thing is that no one knows who is behind these events. Even President Obama said: "We do not know who did this or why." Iran, too, does not know who caused the earthquake.

[…]
People know who is responsible for earthquakes. It is God. But now there are allegations that this earthquake was artificial. The so-called "earthquake-war" has begun. The industrialized countries have the capacity to make bombs that impact the Earth’s crust and core, causing earthquakes. It is even said that the tsunami that raised the waves, causing thousands of deaths, was, in fact, an experiment in that weapon.

[…]

This earthquake had two goals: first, to [prevent] the Russians from officially handing over the Bushehr nuclear plant to Iran within a month’s time. The West does not want this to happen.

[…]
They wanted to destroy the new gas pipeline [from Iran to Pakistan], along with the [Bushehr] nuclear plant. There is also the issue of promoting the sale of gas masks. These expired gas masks, meant to protect people from nuclear gases, have recently been sold in the Gulf. The fourth goal is to sow fear in the Gulf region, where the earthquakes were heard. They want to make these people scared of the Iranian nuclear plant, and to ignite a regional Sunni-Shiite war, a war between Iran and its neighbors.

[…]

To this we should add the bombings in America. Now they are saying that the bombs were placed in "primitive" pots. Why would anyone in the U.S. need to resort to nails and pressure cookers to make a bomb? You can find any type of weapon there and simply buy it. Why did they say "primitive"? I don’t have time to read you the quotation. They said that the bomb was "primitive," in order to direct the blame at one of us in the Third World.

[…]

When North Korea stopped manufacturing buses, it started making nuclear warheads. Today, North Korea poses a threat to America. America might be drawn into an historic war, a war between Communism and capitalism. This is precisely what Israel does not want. Israel wants the war to be between America and the "primitive" Arabs, and that is why the bombs were "primitive."

I have said that the [9/11] Manhattan bombings were meant to transform America from a country to an empire, and that it is, indeed, what happened. Now, they do not want this empire to expand, and to revive the Cold War – this time with North Korea and the Asian countries. No, they want America to continue to defend Israel.

Former Egyptian minister accuses "the Jews" of assassinating Sadat

Former Egyptian Housing Minister, Hasaballah Al-Kafrawi, has accused "the Jews" of assassinating Anwar Sadat on Egyptian TV.

If I follow his bizarre reasoning, it is because Menachem Begin suffered depression late in his life so Israel decided to make him feel better by killing Sadat.

The video can be seen here (not translated yet.)


I love how the host nods.

Palestinian Arab woman dies of cancer in London. Israel blamed

From The Guardian:

Israeli authorities made the wife of the Palestinian ambassador in London interrupt a course of chemotherapy in order to return to Jerusalem or risk losing her residency rights, a trip that hastened her death from cancer, her family claim.

Samira Hassassian was infected by a virus on her plane journey back to London in May and died three months later, aged 57. Her husband, Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian envoy to the UK since 2005, said the Israeli government had extended her Jerusalem identity papers in 2010 for a year after she was first diagnosed with breast cancer in late 2009, but refused to grant a second extension this year, although the disease had by then metastasised to her bones and she was several weeks into intensive chemotherapy.

"They forced her to go back," Hassassian said. "The doctors had told me she had maybe until the end of the year, so this trip just expedited the process, but it also caused her pain and suffering."

These are the first three paragraphs of the article, which means that they are the only parts that people are likely to read. But if you dig deep in the remaining paragraphs you discover that the Israeli embassy adamantly denies that they had forced her to go to Israel, saying that her extension was not in doubt and that they would never force a sick patient to travel.

In fact, as CiF Watch reports, Samira Hassassian chose to go to Israel to seek a second opinion from Hadassah Hospital on her medical condition.

Furthermore, as CiF Watch notes, there is no way to know that she caught a virus on a 5 hour airplane trip and not before or after the flight. The fact that the Guardian states that as a fact and not as an allegation is scurrilous. 

Much more on this slander at CiF Watch.

Egyptian protesters burn down library. Israel blamed

From Al Arabiya:

The fire that broke out in a Cairo library that houses thousands of rare documents raised concerns over the government’s and the army’s ability to protect historic sites at times of upheaval and drove several experts to warn of a possible intervention by foreign entities to preserve the heritage at risk.

Legal and archeological experts described failure to contain the fire that devoured large parts of the Scientific Complex in downtown Cairo and to rescue the priceless maps, manuscripts, and books kept inside as a disaster and warned that the possibility of similar acts of sabotage would make foreign intervention very likely.

...The fact that the fire targeted the Scientific Complex and maps of Egypt’s borders in particular raises a lot of questions about a possible conspiracy, according to [professor of archeology, Mamdouh al-]Masry.

“Was setting the complex on fire intentional in order to eliminate evidence of the borders between Egypt and Israel? Is Israel up to something especially after the Islamist victory in parliamentary election?” he said.

Egyptian archeology professor Ayman Hassan al-Dahshan agreed that a conspiracy is involved in the library fire.

“Why did the military make sure they take photos of the fire minute by minute but did not make an effort to rescue the building and arrest the saboteurs?”

Dahshan argued that the military council is either an accomplice in the act for some unknown reason or has lost control and is unable to control acts of sabotage and to distinguish between protestors and thugs.

“In all cases, what happened to a library that houses the heritage of the most vital country in the Middle East is definitely meant to undermine the state.”

Yes, those expansionist Zionists clearly want to grab some Egyptian land, and the best way to do that is to create a protest where a fire can plausibly break out and burn lots of books that may or may not include a few that show Egypt's border with Israel.

The massive fence they are building probably has wheels, so they can move it a few meters every few days, until the entire Sinai is back in Israeli hands - and Egypt will have no recourse, because all their maps would be burned! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Blaming the Victim By MELANIE PHILLIPS

One of the most egregious signs of western irrationality and bigotry over the issue of Israel is the way in which its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is routinely scapegoated for causing the breakdown of the so-called peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

This charge is based on the widespread fallacy that the ‘peace process’ has stalled because Israel keeps building more Jewish ‘settlements’ on ‘Palestinian land’. This reasoning is not only totally wrong but utterly perverse on the following grounds:

1) The actual reason for the collapse of the ‘peace process’ is that Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly maintains that he will never accept that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state, hails Palestinian terrorists as heroes for murdering Israelis and does nothing to end the incitement to murder Jews disseminated in schools, mosques and media under his control. In other words, Abbas is not a legitimate interlocutor in any civilised ‘peace process’ since he remains committed to the eradication of Israel. Yet Netanyahu is blamed for the impasse.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is routinely scapegoated for causing the breakdown of the so-called peace process between Israel and the Palestinians

2) It is only Israel that has made concessions in this ‘peace process’ (as noted here). The Palestinians not only failed to deliver what was expected of them under the Road Map but now, with their UN gambit, have unilaterally reneged on their previous treaty obligations. Yet Abbas is given a free pass while Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

3) The claim that the ‘settlements’ are the key to resolving the dispute is ridiculous. First, they take up no more than one or two per cent of West Bank territory. Second, even when Netanyahu froze such new building for ten months as a sign of good will, Abbas still refused to negotiate. Yet this is all ignored, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

4) The claim that the establishment of a Palestine state would end the dispute is also ridiculous. Such a state was on offer in 1948; Israel offered to give up more than 90 per cent of the West Bank for such a state in 2000; and an even more generous offer was subsequently made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The Palestinian response was in every case war and terror. Yet all this is ignored, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

5) Whatever land Israel may choose to give up in its own interests, under international law Jews are entitled to settle anywhere in the West Bank.  There is no such thing as Palestinian land and never was. The West Bank and Gaza never belonged to any sovereign ruler after the British withdrew from Mandatory Palestine; before that it was part of the Ottoman empire. Israel’s ‘borders’ are in fact merely the cease-fire lines from its victory in 1948 against the Arab armies that tried unsuccessfully to exterminate it at birth. It is therefore more correct to call the West Bank and Gaza disputed territory. Yet this history and law are denied and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

6) The Jews alone have the legal – as well as the moral and historical -- right to settle within the West Bank and Gaza, a right given to them by the Great Powers after the First World War on account of the unique historical claim by the Jews to the land then called Palestine. This Jewish right to settle anywhere in that land was entrusted to Britain to deliver under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine – an obligation which it proceeded to break. Yet this history and law are denied, and Netanyahu is blamed instead for the impasse.

President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas remains committed to the eradication of Israel, and so cannot be active in any 'peace process'

It is therefore as absurd as it is malicious to blame Netanyahu for the breakdown of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Yet this is precisely what many in the west do – principally because, unlike Israeli politicians on the left, Netanyahu (who certainly has his flaws) is less prepared to play fast and loose with truth, justice and history while offering up Israel’s throat to be cut.

For this inconvenient obduracy he is branded as ‘right-wing’ and therefore beyond the pale and impossible to deal with.

That is presumably what lay behind the now infamous overheard exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama – Sarkozy: ‘I cannot bear Netanyahu, he is a liar’; Obama: ‘You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!’

This exchange tells us many things, none of them good, about the attitude of the Presidents of France and the US towards the Prime Minister of the country that is in the front line of western defence. 

But in the UK, the Times showed yesterday morning that it too has now drunk the Kool-Aid over the Middle East. For just whom did it blame for this horrible exchange between Sarkozy and Obama about Netanyahu? Why – Netanyahu. Its leading article (£) opined:

‘In fact the man who should be most worried by the Cannes table talk is not either of the participants, but the object of their complaint. For what has been exposed is that the leaders of two of the most important allies that Israel has not only dislike Mr Netanyahu intensely, but distrust him too.

‘... Though trust and good personal relationships are hugely important in diplomacy, they are not everything. Israel has existential worries, and understandably feels sometimes that it can rely only on itself. But this “ourselves alone” mentality has become distorted under Mr Netanyahu into what might be called “Millwall diplomacy”, after the famously belligerent soccer fans whose slogan became “no-one likes us, we don’t care”.

Sarkozy: 'I cannot bear Netanyahu, he is a liar'; Obama: 'You¿re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!'

‘Israel needs to win friends, not lose them; to be sustained by its allies, not to alienate them. What the conversation in Cannes shows is that, in Mr Netanyahu, Israel seems to have the wrong leader at the wrong time. This newspaper hopes that either he can change, or if not, that he can be changed.’

So the spite displayed by the Presidents of France and the US towards Netanyahu, whom they have thus kicked in the back despite the fact that he has made concession after concession to Abbas who has never resiled from his own genocidal aims, is actually all the fault of ...Netanyahu, whom the Times wishes to punish further for thus being the victim of such malice by chucking him out of office unless he too starts playing the appeasement game.

One expects to read this kind of disgusting ‘blame the victim’ approach to Israel in newspapers of the left. The Times, however, used to be a staunch friend of Israel and was thus on the right side of history. No longer, it seems. Thus the terrifying confusions of our era deepen still further as the skies darken.

The Arabs are Not Happy

· They are not happy  in Gaza.· They are not happy  in the West.· They are not happy  in Jerusalem.

· They are not happy  in Israel. (There is no equality)· They are not happy  in Egypt.

· They are not happy  in Libya.· They are not happy  in Algeria.· They are not happy  in Tunis.

· They are not happy  in Morocco.· They are not happy  in Yemen.· They are not happy  in Iraq.

· They are not happy  in Afghanistan.· They are not happy in Syria· They are not happy  in Lebanon.

· They are not happy  in Sudan.· They are not happy  in Jordan.· They are not happy  in Iran.

Where are the Arabs happy?

· They are happy  in England.· They are happy  in France.· They are happy  in Italy.

· They are happy  in Germany.· They are happy  in Sweden.

· They are happy  in Holland.· They are happy  in Belgium.

· They are happy  in Norway.· They are happy  in the U.S..· They are happy  in Romania.

· They are happy  in Hungary.

They are happy in any other country in the world that is not under a Muslim rule.

And whom do they blame?

· Not Islam.

· Not their leadership.

· Not themselves.

But the same countries in which they are happy to live. This is so true ….. Democracy is really good for them :

In a democracy  they can live comfortably, enjoy the high quality of life which they did not build and work for, they don’t have to be productive and earn a living, they can be  wild, pray in the street and break the law, rape, exploit the social services,  bite  the hand that feeds them, in short …. they are  leeches.

And by the time the free world wakes up, it will be too late

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Stop blaming Israel for every grievance in the Middle East Why the double standards? We have an obligation to judge all governments and rulers by the same universal values

First came the Arab spring (followed, in some lands, by the harshest of winters) and now Hamas and Fatah have signed a deal for unity. Naturally, Israel is as panicked as are Arab despots by the shifts and quakes, the shaking ground beneath their boots. Israel depended on an everlasting, adamantine status quo. Nothing will ever be as it has been. Successive Israeli governments and their global cheerleaders and backers across the world are guilty of crimes against the humanity and rights of the Palestinian people, they who were made to pay for the European Holocaust. Hitler's unspeakable annihilation project can't be laid to rest and shouldn't. But excruciating historical experiences do not entitle a nation to grab land, to humiliate, to destroy the livelihoods of others and to expect no censure; in effect to be above international law.

I am as pro-Palestinian as the next leftie and try to do my bit; to speak up against repressive Israeli policies and acts, which is never easy, as many of us have had to learn. We go to protests against the collective punishments meted out in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine and on Arab citizens of Israel; others lobby influential people; the brave ones go on flotillas, and the less brave but committed refuse to buy Hass avocadoes and instead purchase olive oil from the West Bank. All of us need to stop and think, to use this moment of upheaval to scrutinise ourselves and our habituated responses to the Middle East.

For many years now, British and American Zionists have complained that progressives pick on Israel, expect higher standards from that government and most iniquitously, that any criticism of their land is in effect a lightly disguised and now approved expression of anti-Semitism. Using a combination of guilt, suggestion and aggression they have managed to, if not suppress, certainly inhibit fair and free debates on the Zionist nation. Think of it as global super injunction. The unreasonable, absolutist supporters of Israel include some crazies but are mostly highly educated, talented professionals and fierce advocates of free speech.These days they are heeded less and so are getting more strident. But what if some of their complaints are valid and justifiable? Do I dare think that, and then say it? And if I do, is that a betrayal of a righteous cause?

These thoughts have been spooling round and round in my head this last month. As Gaddafi systematically massacres his people and the country descends into civil war, as armies slaughter civilians in Yemen and Bahrain, now Syria, I ask why good people have focused only on Palestine/Israel for more than half a century and not attended to the brutality and oppression endemic in the Islamic states. Is it OK for dictators to do what they wish within their own borders to crush democratic demands? I think not, and strongly. No flotillas for their victims? One fact that is kept tightly sealed and buried is this: More Muslims are killed by their brethren in religious and power struggles than are killed by foreign powers and that, as far as I can ascertain is true even after the war on Iraq. It could be that some of the relentless focus on Israel does indeed rise out of a deep stream of anti-Semitism. It is also a useful displacement activity.

Last week I drove past the Syrian Embassy – where I know and like some individuals – and there were a handful of protesters outside, looking hopeless and pathetic. No massive demos pass outside the grand Saudi or Bahraini sites in London either while boys are being hanged in Bahrain for daring to dissent. Why the double standards? We have an obligation to judge all governments and rulers by the same universal values, to listen to Zionists who complain of unfair treatment and open our minds as we enter a new era in the Middle East.

Reading nuanced analyses by thoughtful Jewish thinkers has been illuminating. Change is in the air. On the website of the Union of Jewish Students you can find, for example, the text of a speech by Mike Davis at the Herzliya conference: "[the unfolding events] show that the world can change with alarming speed and that our basic assumptions can be overturned in the blink of an eye. They and the reactions of the West demonstrate the potency and very real nature of the security challenges faced by Israel at this juncture in history...". Davis goes on to tackle the "line between criticism of Israel and delegitimisation". "Not every criticism of Israel is delegitimisation. Not even every untrue or unfair criticism of Israel is delegitimisation. In fact, the link between 'criticism' and 'delegitimisation' is sometimes overstated, damaging the credibility of our responses ... If the Israeli government had internalised and prioritised the threats to its legitimacy then perhaps it would have understood the need to be seen to be doing everything possible to break the deadlock. We control the land. We hold the people. It is up to us. We need to accept that burden."

We Muslims need to accept our burdens too. Whilst still holding Israel to account, we must stop dumping blame on it for all Middle Eastern grievances. The same happened to South Africa under apartheid. It was necessary for the world to come together and help topple that loathsome, racist regime. What was never right was that the worst African dictators were allowed to get away with more violence and viciousness against their citizens while sounding off about evil South Africa. It's always the same. Humans easily excuse themselves and their own for foul acts they condemn in their enemies.

The mulishness and narrow-sightedness of the most unrelenting Zionists is today almost matched by the mulishness and narrow-sightedness of their unrelenting counterparts, anti-Zionist activists. I am not abandoning my total support for Palestinian nationhood and right of return, and here renew my vow to that cause. But that struggle is only one in the big fight for freedom in the Middle East. It is no longer morally justifiable for activists to target only Israel and either ignore or find excuses for corrupt, murderous Arab despots. That kind of selectivity discredits pro-Palestinian campaigners and dishonours the principles of equality and human rights. It has enabled hideous Arab ruling clans to carry on disgracefully for too long.

Like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on The Independent on Facebook for updates

The 'Israel First' Myth Obsessed with the Jewish state, Mideast "experts" got the region all wrong.

In the past few weeks, we've seen revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, a brutal and continuing attempt to put down a rebellion in Libya, and varying degrees of unrest, sometimes violent, in Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Sudan and Yemen.

If only Israel would recognize a Palestinian state, we would have peace in the Middle East!

Ha ha. Hardly anybody is saying that now, but it's worth remembering that it has been the accepted view among Mideast "experts" for decades. Israeli cartoonist Yaakov Kirschen, who draws the syndicated Dry Bones strip, had a terrific one a few weeks ago. It showed a pair of such experts yammering, "Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Gaza," ad nauseam. In the second panel, the experts are shaken as a voice yells "EGYPT!" In the third panel, they stand silently, trying to make sense of it all.

Nick Cohen of London's Observer, a rare British leftist who does not loathe Israel, confronts his ideological brethren in an excellent column:

To a generation of politically active if not morally consistent campaigners, the Middle East has meant Israel and only Israel. In theory, they should have been able to stick by universal principles and support a just settlement for the Palestinians while opposing the dictators who kept Arabs subjugated. Few, however, have been able to oppose oppression in all its forms consistently. . . .

Far from being a cause of the revolution, antagonism to Israel everywhere served the interests of oppressors. Europeans have no right to be surprised. Of all people, we ought to know from our experience of Nazism that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory about power, rather than a standard racist hatred of poor immigrants. Fascistic regimes reached for it when they sought to deny their own people liberty. . . .

Syrian Ba'athists, Hamas, the Saudi monarchy and Gaddafi eagerly promoted the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion], for why wouldn't vicious elites welcome a fantasy that dismissed democracy as a fraud and justified their domination? Just before the Libyan revolt, [Muammar] Gaddafi tried a desperate move his European predecessors would have understood. He tried to deflect Libyan anger by calling for a popular Palestinian revolution against Israel. That may or may not have been justified, but it assuredly would have done nothing to help the wretched Libyans.

Cohen also claims that "the right has been no better than the liberal-left in its Jew obsessions. The briefest reading of Conservative newspapers shows that at all times their first concern about political changes in the Middle East is how they affect Israel."

Maybe he's right--we haven't been following British coverage closely enough to say--but here in America, the anti-Semitic canard that neoconservatives are loyal to Israel first has been disproved. Politico reported Feb. 3:

As Israeli leaders worriedly eye the protests and street battles in neighboring Egypt, they've been dismayed to find that the neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats who are usually their most reliable American advocates are cheering for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's fall. . . .

In particular, neoconservatives such as Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Bush National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, and scholar Robert Kagan are essentially saying good riddance to Mubarak and chiding Obama mainly for not making the same sporadic push for democracy as President George W. Bush.

"If [the Israelis] were to say, 'This is very worrying because we don't know what the future will bring and none of us trust the [Muslim] Brotherhood'--we would all agree with that. But then they then go further and start mourning the departure of Mubarak and telling you that he is the greatest thing that ever happened," said Abrams, who battled inside the Bush administration for more public pressure on Arab allies to reform.

"They don't seem to realize that the crisis that now exists is the creation of Mubarak," he said. "We were calling on him to stop crushing the moderate and centrist parties--and the Israelis had no sympathy for that whatsoever."

One can see why Israelis would be especially anxious about the outcome of the revolution in Egypt, the most populous Arab state and one that has waged war against Israel several times. On "The Journal Editorial Report" a couple of weeks ago, Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary and a pro-democracy neoconservative, raised an analogy that seems to us pertinent:

There's really been too much hand-wringing. Yes, there are a lot of ways this can go wrong. But, you know, I'm reminded that when the Berlin Wall came down, someone I admire, Margaret Thatcher, and her counterpart in France, Francois Mitterrand, were wringing their hands with the specter of a revived German threat in Europe. And President [George H.W.] Bush said: Look, let's celebrate what the Germans have done, let's embrace unity, and then we'll have a chance to steer this in the right direction. . . .

Look, when the tide of freedom is sweeping, we should love it. And when it's headed in the wrong direction, then we'll have a lot more credibility to say, "Whoa, this isn't freedom anymore."

We agree with Wolfowitz, but there's a more sympathetic way of looking at Thatcher's and Mitterand's unease over German unification--one that ought to inspire some empathy for Israel's anxiety. Germany was in their backyard and had waged a vicious war on both England and France just a few decades earlier. The same is true of Egypt today vis-à-vis Israel. And Egypt's future is harder to predict than Germany's in 1989, when most of the country was already stable, democratic and allied with the West. Regime change in Egypt produces uncertainty about the 1978 peace treaty, an agreement that is essential to Israel's security.

On the other hand, we've long argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely a product of Arab dictators, a point even Thomas Friedman acknowledges in a recent column: "The Arab tyrants, precisely because they were illegitimate, were the ones who fed their people hatred of Israel as a diversion." But Friedman still manages to get it backward:

If Israel could finalize a deal with the Palestinians, it will find that a more democratic Arab world is a more stable partner. Not because everyone will suddenly love Israel (they won't). But because the voices that would continue calling for conflict would have legitimate competition, and democratically elected leaders will have to be much more responsive to their people's priorities, which are for more schools not wars.

In truth, a more democratic Arab world--which is now a real possibility, though by no means a certainty--is a necessary precondition for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. On this point Friedman has long been obtuse. Nine years ago, he suggested the Arab states offer "a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees."

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in a 2002 interview with Friedman, enthusiastically endorsed the idea, which Friedman started calling "the Abdullah plan." But as Friedman acknowledged in a 2009 column, Abdullah, who became king in 2005, "always stopped short of presenting his ideas directly to the Israeli people." That 2009 column included the latest Friedman brainstorm, "what I would call a five-state solution," involving the creation of a Palestinian state and promises by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia aimed at guaranteeing Israel's security.

It was fanciful of Friedman to think that Arab dictators--whom he now acknowledges have depended on scapegoating Israel to maintain their hold on power--would have agreed to such plans. But what if they had?

A little history is perhaps apposite here. From Israel's creation in 1948 until the 1979 Iranian revolution, Jerusalem had close relations with the authoritarian government of the shah. The current regime in Iran is dedicated to Israel's destruction. It's hard to see how Israel would be better off today if it had entrusted its security to the Arab dictators whose own people have suddenly made them an endangered species.