• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« What type of Israel do we want? | Main | Lauren Booth: Gaza is a concentration camp! »

September 14, 2008




Olmert, like Mbeki, is toast. He can say what he likes but he is yesterday's Prime Minister.

I wonder whether Livni, Mofaz or Netanyahu would garner many votes if they made similar statements.


I agree with you BD, he is toast. Unlike Mbeki, he may go to jail for his corruption.

But even Sharon had this view. Tzipi Livni surely believes the same, though she would be silly to say it right now. But she is definitely in the 'compromise; give up control' camp. So is Barak.

Bibi was there in 1998. He is big talk but was part and parcel of Oslo. I think he signed the Wye River accords and the agreement to move troops out of Hebron.

Positions and statements change when they become PM. Sharon said that he learned how different things are from "up here" when he was PM.


As Israel's ruling centrist Kadima party prepares for leadership elections on Wednesday, the opposition centre-right Likud is riding high in the polls.

The Likud party is in buoyant mood as its members gather under the mirrors and gaudy lights of a seaside wedding hall in the city of Ashdod.
As a rousing party song blares to welcome the party's leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, salesman Kobi Torgman, 33, says he has "come home".
Like many of those gathered to welcome Mr Netanyahu, he deserted the main party of the Israeli right to help bring the more centrist Kadima party to power in 2006.
But now, with elections on the cards again, he says he has been "disappointed big time" by Kadima and it is time to give Bibi, as Mr Netanyahu is popularly known, a second chance.

The Kadima party was formed nearly three years ago when then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon split from Likud in what has been described as a "big bang" of Israeli politics.

The issue that tore Likud apart was Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw, or "disengage", Israeli troops and settlers, first from the Gaza Strip, and then from parts of the West Bank.
It was an abrupt U-turn from a man who had urged Israelis to "settle every hilltop".
Mr Netanyahu, who himself has served as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, resigned as finance minister in protest.
But Mr Torgman says he, like many Likudniks, was a big fan of Mr Sharon and followed him to the new party.
Deserted by core, lower-income Likud voters over welfare cuts he had imposed, Mr Netanyahu led the remnant of the party to a bruising fourth place in the 2006 vote count.

But three years later, the picture is very different.
"If we got a slap from Netanyahu, we got a punch in the face from Kadima," says Jojo Abutbol, a local resident and chat show host, who also plans to return to the Likud fold.

"Not only have we forgiven Bibi, we have realised we were wrong - what is 4% off welfare compared to the way things have deteriorated?"
Disengagement in now mentioned little. The vacated Gaza Strip is controlled by the militant group Hamas and has been used to launch hundreds of missiles at Israeli towns.
Mr Sharon lies in a coma after a massive stroke. His successor, Ehud Olmert, was heavily criticised for his handling of the 2006 war with Lebanon and is due to step down amid multiple corruption investigations.
Early general elections look likely if the new leader that Kadima is due to choose is unable to form a stable coalition.
For much of the summer Mr Netanyahu has been leading in the polls, although one of the Kadima leadership hopefuls, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, has recently narrowed the gap.

While Kadima is embroiled in peace talks with the Palestinians, Likud says it will wait until there is a stronger negotiating partner on the other side and try to boost the West Bank economy in the meantime.
Analysts such as Gideon Doron, who teaches Political Science at Tel Aviv University, say the second Palestinian uprising, the 2006 Lebanon war and rising concerns over a potentially nuclear Iran have led to a general shift among voters towards parties perceived as tough on security.

However, as Mr Doron points out, often in Israel, "we don't vote for, we vote against".
Many analysts attributed Kadima's success to disillusionment with the traditional parties, and now argue that disappointment with Kadima and its coalition partner Labour, has contributed to Mr Netanyahu's recovery.
The buoyant Israeli economy is also helping, vindicating the tough reforms he made as finance minister.
Mr Netanyahu has been working to overturn perceptions among some that he is arrogant and incapable, saying he has learned from his past "mistakes" and drawing new blood into the party, which stresses it is centre-right, not right-wing.
And personality matters less in security-conscious Israel than elsewhere, says Gil Hoffman, a political analyst at the Jerusalem Post:
"Who says the prime minister has to be a saint? People in Israel want someone with experience, even if they are uncouth, slovenly and can barely complete a sentence."

However, many Israelis say there is now little to choose between the three biggest parties as the battle is increasingly focused on the centre.
"People are not dreaming anymore, they became realistic on both ends of the political spectrum," says Avraham Diskin, a veteran political commentator based at the Hebrew University. "People moved to the centre because they became realistic."
But there are also those left politically isolated by the dash to the centre-right.
Only 15 minutes drive from Ashdod, Nitzin is home to many of the people whose fate was at the heart of the Likud-Kadima division.
Row after row of prefabricated homes dubbed "caravillas" house mainly right-wing settlers who were removed from Gaza.
Some, such as Dan Zaerbiv, 29, voted for Likud in the past, for the "old", pre-disengagement Ariel Sharon, but, unimpressed with Mr Netanyahu, plan no political homecoming to the party.
"There is now not really a clear left or right, just different shades of centre," he says.
Or, as engineering student Nissim Chaviv, 26, puts it: "No one speaks for us now."


In fact Bibi gave up more land than either Barak or Rabin.

I think this bill is a good move. But I dont believe that it is a substitute for an agreement or means that the IDF can now withdraw from those ares without Palestinian forces being ready to take control. We dont want another Gaza!


what about the other 82% ?


Interesting how frankly a politician (Olmert) speaks when he no longer has a political career and has also fallen out with the state. Will Olmert even remain a Zionist if he is thrown into a Zionist prison??

Phillip Dexter (ex SACP) is another case in point. Read what he has to say in The Sunday Times about the importance of freedom of speech. Unusual for a Communist.

I wonder whether Mbeki will also now change his tune? Perhaps he will join The DA? Will Helen Zille welcome him with open arms (without harping on about the arms deal)??


Agree with you Mike. And that's why I think its can be argued that the bill is premature.

On the one does raise expectations. First we need an agreement and we shouldn't withdraw our forces.

But 'on the other hand' its good to condition our people for what we will ultimately need to do. And best to reward those willing to leave voluntarily, especially if they will move to the Negev where its time we started settling.

I think we can start incentiving settlers to either move to our side of the barrier or to Israel proper. (The concept is that our side of the barrier is Israel proper). IDF will remain in the territories until there is an agreement.

The Gaza concept of freeing up our forces from having to defend the settlers no longer exists.

But we need to be open to the idea that although Gaza was a failure it doesn't delegetimise withdrawing settlers from territory on the east side of the barrier - settlers only, not forces.


BD, I think you wrong on Olmert. He has spoken frankly for a long time now, long before his toast burnt.

A while back he warned that if we dont find a solution soon we will be the next apartheid state.

He has also frequently spoken of concessions on Jerusalem and was the voice behind Sharon's evacuation from Gaza.

So yes in general politicians will speak more frankly when they are 'toast', but in the case of Olmert you are incorrect.

That's not to argue that his has been a good premiership. Just arguing that he is saying now what he has been saying for some time already.


Can you please explain the purpose of making further and further concessions for absolutely nothing in return?



I hear what you say.

But do you think Olmert will remain a Zionist if he is found guilty and sent to prison?


Steve and Gary,

What do you think about the following view, posted at the end of last year, by Caroline Glick...

"From October 26-30, a mob of Druse villagers in Peki'in in the Galilee launched what has all the markings of a pogrom against the four Jewish families in the village. They burned their cars and surrounded and torched their homes.

The police took a full day to come to the Jews' defense. And when they did, the Druse mob kidnapped a policewoman and only set her free in exchange for their cohorts who had been arrested. The police then set about evacuating the Jews from their encircled homes and did nothing to prevent their homes from being destroyed by the mob.

Now the Knesset's Interior Committee is demanding that a governmental commission of inquiry be set up to investigate what the Druse claim was police brutality in attempting to disperse the violent mob. For its part the Olmert government is distancing itself from Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter's decision to suffice with an internal police investigation of the policemen's behavior at the scene.

The question that arises is whether the leftist-dominated Knesset and the Olmert government act as they do out of fear or conviction. This question is given increased urgency as the Olmert government, under intense pressure from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice moves closer to officially committing Israel to surrender Judea and Samaria and large swathes of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount to the Palestinian Authority. Such a commitment would not merely induce Israel to divest itself of the ability to defend itself while ensuring the establishment of a terror enclave within mortar range of its major cities. Given that the Palestinian state which everyone is so adamant in championing will be an apartheid state which will legally bar all Jews from owning land or acquiring residency or citizenship rights, the Olmert government's acceptance of the demand for Palestinian statehood involves an internalization of the anti-Semitic view which posits that Jews have fewer rights than everybody else. "


Olmert’s Bizarre Reading List
Eric Trager - 12.03.2007 - 10:45 AM
Thanks to their highly controversial recent publications, former President Jimmy Carter and the academic tag-team of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have become persona non grata in much of the American Jewish community. Carter’s Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid argued that Israeli settlement in the West Bank—not terrorism, nor the ascendancy of Hamas—is the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argued that U.S. policy in the Middle East is primarily driven by “American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.”

Yet while the American Jewish community was busy debating whether these authors were anti-Semitic, conspiratorial, or simply misguided, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was apparently leafing through the two bestselling tomes for sound-bite material. Consider Olmert’s bizarre press statements following last week’s Annapolis Conference, in which he framed his pursuit of negotiations with terms perfectly agreeable to Cater, Walt, and Mearsheimer.

First, Olmert conceded to Carter’s claim that Israel faces a choice between peace or apartheid, saying:

If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.

Then, borrowing a page from the Walt-Mearsheimer playbook, Olmert argued that Israel must choose peace over apartheid to satisfy its supporters in the United States, who are essential to the Jewish state’s survival; as he told Haaretz:

The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.

Olmert should be taken to task for his carelessness. For starters, perhaps he needs to be reminded of his primary constituency. Olmert represents Israelis, and will need Israelis’ broad support to make the painful concessions that peace will require. It is truly hard to imagine Israelis being swayed by the prospective loss of American Jewish moral support for their government’s decisions, particularly when peace carries substantial risks for their personal security, first and foremost.

Furthermore, Olmert should be reminded of his secondary constituency: Palestinians, who will hardly be motivated to support peace with an Israeli prime minister who frames negotiations as a means of avoiding institutionalized racism. At least one Egyptian newspaper was aglow with headlines noting that the Israeli Prime Minister compared his state to apartheid South Africa. This is public diplomacy at its worst.

Olmert is going to have to learn to better represent Israelis and more effectively address Palestinians if forthcoming negotiations are to have any chance. On the other hand, in case negotiations fail, Olmert has done a good job of opening up a future position as a Middle East Fellow at the Carter Center.



I am not saying that I agree with Glick and Trager, but I have posted their views to widen the discussion.

However, I should have defended my initial position more forcefully... when a President is being accused of being a ganov, one should take everything he says with extreme caution. This maxim applies to Olmert and Zuma.

I don't believe that Olmert can add anything to Israel's public life. He should get the hell out and shut the f up.



Olmert: 'No pogroms' against Arabs

Olmert said the actions of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would 'not be tolerated' [AFP]
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has likened a rampage by armed Jewish settlers in a Palestinian village to a "pogrom" and said Israel would not tolerate such attacks in the occupied West Bank.

"In the state of Israel, there will be no pogroms against
non-Jews," Olmert said at the start of a weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday.

Olmert's comments referred to an attack by Jewish settlers from the Yetsahir settlement on Saturday against Palestinians in the village of Asira al-Kabaliya.

Three Palestinians were shot and wounded in the settlers' attack, medical officials said.

Dozens of settlers, some firing weapons, assaulted Palestinians and damaged houses in the village. No arrests have been made.

The incident followed the stabbing of a nine-year-old boy by a Palestinian in a nearby Jewish outpost earlier in the day. His wounds were not life-threatening.

'Intolerable phenomenon'

"This is an intolerable phenomenon and it will be dealt with in the strongest way by Israel's law enforcement authorities," Olmert said.

Mohammed Arouf, the president of Asira al-Kabaliya, said on Israel Radio:"The settlers started to throw stones at houses.

"They broke windows and shot at people here and there who came out of their homes to try to protect their neighbours."

Yigal Amitai, a spokesman for the nearby Yitzhak settlement, said the Palestinian who stabbed the boy had come from Asira al-Kabaliya.

Asked whether Yitzhar settlers had taken the law into their own hands, he said: "I think it is time for Israel to stop playing the victim, and start being the aggressor."

Zehava Galon, a legislator from Israel's left-wing Meretz party, accused Israeli authorities of failing for years to punish settlers who break the law.

Amos Harel, the military affairs correspondent for Israel's Haaretz newspaper, said the "law of the jungle" applied in the West Bank.

Yitzhak settlers are being accused of taking the law into their own hands [AFP]
"The settlers are in danger and let's not get that wrong. They face daily risks, and their way of settling accounts is very violent and built on deterrence," he wrote.

At least 500,000 Jews live among 2.5 million Palestinians on West Bank land captured by Israel in a 1967 war, including Arab East Jerusalem.

In his remarks to the cabinet, Olmert noted that settlers at a West Bank outpost built without government permission had broken the hand of an officer on Wednesday during an army operation to confiscate construction equipment.

Olmert, the focus of a series of corruption investigations, is due to resign later this week after his Kadima party holds an election to select a new leader on Wednesday, although he could stay on as a caretaker prime minister until his successor forms a new government, or until an early national election is held.

The word "pogrom" has particular significance in Israel, where it is used mainly to describe violence against Jews in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Olmert has pledged to use the remainder of his tenure to continue to pursue a peace deal with the Palestinians.



I have to conclude that at this particular juncture, Ehud Olmert is perhaps the last Jew on earth that you should quote regarding Israel's future. Unlike Zuma, he might end-up in the clink. As a result, he does not necessarily have the welfare of the Israeli State uppermost in his mind.

Interesting to see how Al Jazeera has reported the story.


A Jordanian-Palestinian Federation?

(Dan Diker is a journalist and a senior policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs where he heads its Defensible Borders Initiative. Pinchas Inbari is a journalist and an Arab and Palestinian affairs analyst and has authored four books on the Palestinians, The Palestinians: Between Terror and Statehood.)

The Jordanian government has not indicated interest in re-annexing the West Bank, a plan under consideration until 1987.[33] However, both Jordanian and senior Palestinian leaders say that possibilities exist for security, economic, and, possibly, political arrangements between Jordan and a future independent Palestinian entity. A senior Palestinian government official confided that a federation-confederation between a Palestinian entity and Jordan would be the only reasonable, stable, long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He suggested that both the Jordanian and Palestinian Authority leaderships should lead joint negotiations with Israel to solve the refugee issue and that of Jerusalem, and determine the final borders of the West Bank.[34]

Abdullah's Al-Urdunn Awwalan (Jordan First) political and economic reform program includes a proposal to decentralize Amman's political control and rezone the kingdom into northern, central, and southern governorates.[35] Jordan's new federal approach to the East Bank may have implications for the West Bank's political future.

In a January 19, 2005 speech on Jordanian television, Abdullah said the kingdom would have a "number of development areas or regions each of which would consist of respective governorates and local councils elected by the people who would set the priorities of their respective areas." Three months later, he established a new governmental body with eight subcommittees with mandates to draft legislation devolving legislative authority to a number of regional parliaments covering the northern, southern, and central districts.[36] A federal Jordanian political system presents a logical foundation for parallel districting on the West Bank.

Marriage and succession diplomacy may also facilitate co-federation. King Abdullah derives popularity among Palestinians in Jordan because his wife Rania is from the West Bank city of Tulkharm. Abdullah's February 2005 decision to replace younger half-brother Prince Hamza with his own ten-year-old son Hussein would also enhance popularity. While Hamza's mother is American-born, Hussein's mother is Rania.[37]

Not everything will be smooth sailing. Palestinian elites—many of whom have significant financial holdings in the West Bank—chafe at Abdullah's efforts to construct a new Jordanian national identity. The historical narratives of the East and West Bank Palestinians have also diverged. Jordan is in the throes of a post-ideological revolution defined by high technology, the Internet, and Westernization. They focus more on the present and less on the unresolved Palestinian refugee issue. Jordan's ambassador to Israel, Marouf al-Bakhit, though, has argued that co-federation could break the refugee impasse. "We shall give them the right to choose," he said. "You came here when there was a unity between Jordan and Palestine. Now there is a Palestinian state ... This is the right time to make the choice if you want to go back [to Palestine]."[38]

The Palestinian Debate

Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal, Gaza has degenerated into chaos, and unemployment rates have exceeded 50 percent.[39] Many West Bank Palestinians worry that if the current chaos and lawlessness continue there, and if the Israelis withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza may be their future. Nigel Roberts, World Bank director for the West Bank and Gaza, warned on January 10, 2006, that the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of bankruptcy.[40] Across the Jordan River, though, West Bankers see prosperous East Bank Palestinian families well-integrated into the Jordanian system, owning majority stakes in Jordan's banking, industrial, commerce, and agricultural sectors. Such comparisons have sparked debate among Palestinian Authority leaders about how to achieve a more promising Palestinian future.

Since Israel's disengagement, Palestinian priorities have shifted toward improving standards of living and fighting corruption.[41] They are tired of institutional corruption and the PLO and Hamas's collision course. World Bank director Roberts warned recently that security chaos in Gaza and large parts of the West Bank and violence is driving away foreign investors.[42] Many Palestinians even fear civil war.[43]

The current situation creates a stark choice for moderate West Bank Palestinians: either link up with Islamist and anarchic Gaza, or tie the West Bank's future to a relatively affluent and stable Jordan that has a good working relationship with neighboring Israel. Leading Palestinian intellectuals Riad Malki and Rami Nasrallah, both of whom run respected Palestinian policy institutes, have also raised doubts as to whether bilateral negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel could ever result in a viable Palestinian state.[44] During a June 2005 trip to Washington, Palestinian publisher Hanna Seniora said, "The current weakened prospects for a two-state solution forces us to revisit the possibility of a confederation with Jordan."[45]

The efforts of PA interior minister and national security forces commander Nasser Youssef to maintain control have not only failed but also contributed to a general deterioration of security. Upon the assumption of his duties following the election of Mahmoud Abbas in January 2005, Youssef inherited approximately 40,000 security forces which Arafat had divided into no fewer than nine competing security services before international pressure to enact reform forced the late PA chairman to combine them. But the divisions were too great to overcome. To start from scratch would mean purging tens of thousands of enlistees, a move which would spark rebellion.[46]

A second obstacle to the Palestinian Authority's ability to establish law and order has been the emergence of local warlords such as West Bank strongman Jibril Rajoub and Gaza strongman Muhammed Dahlan, currently in charge of civil affairs. Rajoub, Dahlan, and organized crime families such as the Dagmush and Abu Samhadanna clans have established private militias that render unchallenged PA control impossible without the cooperation and participation of Jordan. Moreover, the ruling Fatah party is fragmented and on the verge of implosion.

Because of the growing chaos, prominent Palestinian families in Nablus traveled repeatedly to Amman to request that Jordan dispatch Jordanian security forces to several West Bank cities to help establish law and order. Back channel negotiations between Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah in 2003 and 2004 resulted in an agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members, former Palestinian refugees from the 1967 war, trained under Jordanian army supervision.[47] Youssef supported the proposal.[48] He recognizes that he neither has enough professional nor loyal forces at his disposal to compete with well-paid private militias or highly motivated and disciplined Islamist terror groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.[49]

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon informed his cabinet of the Jordanian security cooperation on June 1, 2005, but he later nixed the plan, fearing that it might contribute to the chaos in the Palestinian Authority.[50] Some PA officials also complained although their motivation appeared to be fear that the Badr presence could undermine personal economic interests.[51] Many senior Palestinian officials, though, privately say they favor the plan. For Abbas and his aides, rolling back Hamas weaponry and well-armed and financed Tanzim rivals represent a more pressing issue than the personal financial dealings of some local apparatchiks. Senior Palestinian officials recently suggested that the Palestinian Authority could better implement reform and overcome rival Islamist groups' warlords if Jordanian authorities managed security, economic support, and financial investment in the West Bank.[52] King Abdullah, likewise, appears to want to weed out any nascent attempts for Al-Qaeda or other groups to establish a foothold from which they could not only strike west toward Israel but also east toward Jordan.


While international events have had a negative impact on Jordanian security, they have also increased the political importance of the kingdom. Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraqi influence hobbled by its own troubles. International criticism of the Syrian regime in the wake of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri's assassination has undercut Syrian influence. Saudi preoccupation with Al-Qaeda and post-succession internecine struggles within the royal family have also reduced Riyadh's willingness to take a political lead. The Palestinian Authority, too, may be accepting of a Jordanian role. Abbas keeps close ties to King Abdullah and maintains a residence in Amman. Jordan has much more opportunity to play the leading Arab role in the West Bank than at any point since its disengagement in 1988 and, perhaps, even since Abdullah I was in his prime in the 1930s.

Reconsideration of some form of a federal relationship between Jordan and the West Bank may appear to go back to the future. The motivations for such a move, though, are far different than before the Oslo process. Now, the Jordanian-West Bank federation may be the Palestinians' only hope to defeat radical Islamism and build both a viable and democratic state.

U.S. policymakers should not be bound by a roadmap that may exist in diplomatic parlors but has no basis in the Israeli, Jordanian, or Palestinian reality. The Oslo process failed to create a viable and democratic Palestinian state. The end of the Arafat and Sharon era as well as the degeneration of Gaza into anarchy has made the roadmap moot. While the push for reconsideration of a Jordan-West Bank federation has come from Jordanians and Palestinians, Washington could play a valuable role in supporting and directing the process. Such a federation may not only be key to the security of both Jordan and Israel in the face of well-organized and well-financed jihadism, but it may also be the Palestinians' last best chance to have a viable state.


It is crucial is to develop good economic relations between Israel and Jordan, Israel and "The West Bank" and Jordan and "The West Bank".
There has been too much emphasis placed on a two state solution and not enough emphasis on how Jordan can be brought into the equation.
If the West Bank is to be transformed into a successful state it must have good economic relations with Israel and Jordan.

I attach the following. To what extent has progress been made?

October 26, 1994

Viewing economic development and prosperity as pillars of peace, security and harmonious relations between states, peoples and individual human beings, the Parties, taking note of understandings reached between them, affirm their mutual desire to promote economic co-operation between them, as well as within the framework of wider regional economic co-operation. In order to accomplish this goal, the Parties agree to the following:

to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations, to terminate economic boycotts directed at each other, and to co-operate in terminating boycotts against either Party by third parties;
recognizing that the principle of free and unimpeded flow of goods and services should guide their relations, the Parties will enter into negotiations with a view to concluding agreements on economic co-operation, including trade and the establishment of a free trade area, investment, banking, industrial co-operation and labour, for the purpose of promoting beneficial economic relations, based on principles to be agreed upon, as well as on human development considerations on a regional basis. These negotiations will be concluded no later than 6 months from the exchange the instruments of ratification of this Treaty.
to co-operate bilaterally, as well as in multilateral forums, towards the promotion of their respective economies and of their neighborly economic relations with other regional parties.



After the 1967 Six-Day War, during which Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, Palestinian Arabs living there continued to have the right to apply for Jordanian passports and live in Jordan. Palestinian refugees actually living in Jordan were considered full Jordanian citizens as well. In July 1988, King Hussein of Jordan announced the severing of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank. Any Palestinian living on Jordanian soil would remain and be considered Jordanian. However, any person living in the West Bank would have no right to Jordanian citizenship.
Jordan still issues passports to Palestinians in the West Bank, but they are for travel purposes only and do not constitute an attestation of citizenship. Palestinians in the West Bank who had regular Jordanian passports were issued these temporary ones upon expiration of their old ones, and entry into Jordan by Palestinians is time-limited and considered for tourism purposes only. Any Jordanian citizen who is found carrying a Palestinian passport (issued by the Palestinian Authority and Israel) has his/her Jordanian citizenship revoked by Jordanian border agents.
More recently, Jordan has restricted entry of Palestinians from the West Bank into its territory, fearing that many Palestinians would try to take up temporary residence in Jordan during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This has caused many hardships for Palestinians, especially since 2001 when Israel discontinued permission for Palestinians to travel through its Ben Gurion International Airport, and traveling to Jordan to fly out of Amman became the only outlet for West Bank Palestinians to travel.
Information from the Jordanian censuses which distinguishes between Palestinians and pre-1948 Arab-Israeli War Jordanians is not publicly available, and it is widely believed that Palestinians in Jordan (domiciled in Jordan and considered citizens) constitute the majority of the kingdom's population. However, in a 2002 television interview on a US network, King Abdullah II of Jordan assured that "Jordanians of Palestinian Origin" are only 40-45% of the Jordanian population, and that an independent survey would be conducted to settle the matter.[23]


"Israeli leaders prepared to give up on its dreams; where are the Palestinians?"

And where are The Jordanians??


Has there been any discussion, from the perspective of international law of, King Hussein of Jordan's announcement in July 1988 which severed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank?

Did he really have the right to do so?


Great points Anthony.

It reminds me of Jonny Steinbergs reply to a similar question at Limmud that asked what role could Jordan play.

Jonny obnoxiously replied something to the effect of - Jordan, well it would be nice if we could just send all the Palestinians away.'

It illustrated just how securely fastened the blinkers are that he confused a question on a Jordanian role with ethnic cleansing. I laughed.

I see a huge role for Jordan in administering areas where we leave. Perhaps the Palestinian areas could be an autonomous area of Jordan? Jordan is scared of getting involved for good reason.

But Jordan is not secure. They are ruled by a family who could be deposed at any moment and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas).

That's the dilemma we face. We give up tangible land and control. We get an intangible "peace of paper" which could be torn up very easily by the next leader of whoever we do the deal with. Its a particular issue with a deal with Syria where Assad's apartheid regime is very shaky.

BD, you also asked a brilliant question about little Israel's existence if it weren't for big Israel. What do you think?

I don't claim to be able to answer the question. But I don't regard the settlement enterprise as a blanket error. I think it was good to settle parts of Yesha that hug the greenline. I think it was good to settle the Golan Heights. I think the settlements are what finally convinced the Palestinians that they need to agree on our existence within the green lines (even if only for tactical reasons).

I think the problem was the complete lack of any strategic approach to settlement. Who decided which areas to settle? Ungovernable ideologues decided...they created facts and then got government legitimacy. Many areas they settled had nothing to do with security or demography. It had everything to do with enforcing their right to live in the Biblical heartland of Isarel. But that doesnt mean they made us stronger.

The settlement enterprise from the govt point of view was haphazard and unstructured.

We needed a plan. All we had were Yigal Allon's lines and Moshe Dayan's simplistic view that we just have to be nice to the Palestinians and then we can virtually have all the land.

Many of the settlements did makes us stronger. We have tangible assets that we can concede and we have new towns that have been included on the eastern side of the border which will hopefully be ours forever (although todays reports of 98% concession do worry me).

But the over-riding concept was that with the new territory we were more militarily secure. Well, 1973 disproved that concept. With the entire Sinai and Golan we were still attacked by Egypt and Syria Who knows what would have happened if Jordan attacked? No doubt, many settlers would have been killed.

We were almost defeated. Keeping the territory did ensure that the lines of war were further from the our civilian bases, but having settlements didnt help one bit. The settlements in the Golan did not provide an inch of deterrent effect. 1973 with all the territory was still 1967.

So do they really make us strategically safer? I'm not convinced. Military experts have argued both ways which I think makes both arguments legitimate and no civilian living in SA has the military knowledge to state their opinion as fact. Even if they quote from Caroline Glick.

Of course, forces in the area make us safer and more difficult to attack - but that doesnt mean the civilian settlements make us safer.


I am sorry if I may have diverted attention from the initial focus of your blog editorial. If I have, please delete some of my comments.

I include Jordan, because it rarely gets discussed. Yes, Jonny Steinbeck's response was a classic. He is clearly out of his depth when faced with the geographical/ political complexities of the area.

I was never a "Gush" supporter and I don't know the answer to my "big Israel, small Israel" question. I hoped that you might.


Regarding Jonny Steinberg's comments, it is clear that any solution that strengthens Israel's security, even if it does NOT harm the Palestinians in any way is anaethma to people like this.
That is why mentioning federating a Palestinian State on the West Bank with Jordan galls with them.
It would solve a problem that would make Israel safer and more secure .
That is also why these people insist on mechanisms like the 'right of return' which means the end of Israel.
I would be very wary of being too willing to welcome anyone who pays lip service to a 'two state solution' as a friend even if they at the same time insists on mechanisms that would soon lead to the destruction of Israel like the 'right of return' and oppose keeping major settlement blocs where Jews are in a majority.
Why does keeping an area like Gush Katif as part of Israel if the area has a Jewish majority.
These people want to see Jews removed.
And actually why do they oppose absorbing Arab areas of the Galil triangle into an Arab state?

They may say they seek a two state solution but they will oppose any actual solution that leaves Israel secure and intact.



I wonder whether Na'eem Jeenah's new Middle East Institute will offer me research facilities so that I can pursue my interest in Jordanian/Palestinian/Israeli relations ? I certainly want to study under its prestigious auspices and" hope that I wont be discriminated against because of my inconsequential "FIX THE FXI" campaign.

Btw, if i need a reference, will you kindly supply me with one?


BD I am making a serious point here.
Do these letists really want a fair solution as they claim or will they in fact oppose any solution that provides safety and security for a sovereign Jewish State called Israel.
Calling for the so-called 'right of return' is exactly the same as calling for a 'one state solution'. They are both euphemisms for the destruction of Israel.



Most of the leftists probably want to see the Israelis swimming to Cyprus. Not sure what % though. Maybe 80% ?

Will Cyprus be the next jewish state?


The point is that unless people really desire fair solution that garantees Israel's security and sovereignty, there is really no reason for engagement wit them.



Israel's opponents are playing a long game. Their aim is to destroy the State of Israel. They believe that as time progresses the cards will be stacked in their favour and Israel will fold.

The chances of a negotiated seettlement are zero. About the same likelihood of Shaik and Zuma sharing a cell together. Less than zero.

Of course for a multiplicity of reasons, few people actually admit publicly to this. But most of the serious players know it to be true.



I wrote "Why does keeping an area like Gush Katif as part of Israel if the area has a Jewish majority".

I meant to write the Gush Etzion.



They are not interested in a solution "that provides safety and security for a sovereign Jewish State called Israel."

Most of them are, for some strange reason, with the President of Iran ie. Israel must disappear. If they were magicians and knew "abracadabra", they would have used it a long time ago.

Israel is seen as an epitome of a successful democratic capitalist state and as a result, her very existence, and particularly her economic success, is anathema to their warped ideology.

Such leftists can only dream of a return to a medieval era. For them Israel is a modern nightmare.


I believe that the reason for the far-left's hate of Israel is metaphysical.
They hate anything related to G-D and the Bible so the very name Israel is anathema to them.

look at all the evil they have supported through the years, Mao's Red China, the old Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Castro, Gadaffi, and now Islamo-Fascists.
It is in a way similar to the cult of Satanism, a rebellion against all good and morality, against everything they were taught in their Jewish day schools if they are Jewish or at Sunday school if they were raised Christian.
It is simply a case of if they were brought up to think of it as evil it must be good and vice versa.
A certain attraction to the dark side.
They know deep inside that Israel is the side of good and light and her enemies the side of evil, and in their tortured souls this fuels their rage further.


The worst thing about it all go's back to the words of Yeats in his poem 'The Second Coming"
'The best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
Apart from a very few, all of the passionate intensity and fervour seems to be on the anti-Israel side.
I hope I will live to see the day when more Zionists live by the slogan "No Surrender!"


Another reason why they hate Israel is that many Marxists are extremely disillusioned. Communism has collapsed all over the place. So they don't really believe in anything. (They kid themeselves that they hate The West and all it stands for. Actually they love all its freedoms and goodies but they have to pretend they hate it.)
Anyway to cut a long story short... Islam wants to overthrow Israel and The West. So they now jump on the fundamentalist bandwagon because their Marxist ideology is bankrupt. They have nothing better to do.


Re above.. should have written " Islamic fundamentalism wants to overthrow Israel and The West. Many Muslims do not!



I have to disagree with you regarding the importance of presence in the land and defence.I'm not suree where you get your data but all the material I have read has been of the opinion that it was exactly Israel's occupation of the Golan that saved it in 1973. If you look at The Valley of Tears and realise that units like the 77th literally held the Syrian army back then you can see the importance of the Geography. Not to take away from the bravery and strength of Kahalani and his men but the geography was vital. Yes, Syrian forces made it through to the edge of the Golan but by this time Israel had had time to mobilize its full army. Likewise, a civilian presence in an area creates infrastructure that brings control and stability. Loom at the Gush Etzion area area vs the Shomron. I do not believe that it is coincidence that the well developed and highly populated Gush area has far fewer attacks than does the Shomron, especially with regards to "minor" attacks.

I believe you have been taken in by Olmert's propaganda. I too was supportive of his idea that we need to withdraw to prevent from becoming an apartheid state, after hearing him in SA 4 years ago. TG I soon realised that as logical as his argument sounds it has no basis in reality. Unilateral withdrawl from any part of Israel is only logical if one agrees that it will apease, i some way, either the world, or the so-called Palestinians. If after leaving, throwing Jews out of their homes etc, you are left with a situation where the Arabs are still demanding more, terrorism continues and the international community is at best ambivalent, at worst unsatisfied, then you have gained nothing and lost security and self respect. Gaza has shown this. Anyone, who after the "disengagement" from Gaza, still supports a withdrawl from any other part of Israel is either intellectually dishonest, blinded by a desire to please the international community or a complete moron. True, the current situation is not ideal. True, the status quo cannot last forever. But not true that the only outcome is being forced to absorb the palestinians and then either lose Israel democratically or be foreced to have an apartheid state (this is Olmert's argument). There are other possible outcomes, many we haven't even thought of. To concede to the enemy, to reward terrorism, to lose essential security and to leave our holy land are, together, the price to be paid for absolutely nothing in return.

To anyone who supports any concessions to the "palestinians" I ask this. Please show me on occassion, where any concession or appeasement to the these people has resulted in any positive move towards peace. In fact, I challenge you to show me just once - where a concession has not lead to an increase in violence against Israel. If you can show me this time, I will open my ears to your side, if you cannot, you need to examine your beliefs very carefully


Brett, peace with Egypt would be an example.


I thought someone would say that, for that reason I wrote "these people" to indicate the "Palestinians". It is true, we now have a cold peace with Egypt but there were fundamental differences in that situation.


I know you always write from the heart.

1. What are these other options?

2. Do you support the security barrier? It implies a withdrawal of all civilians east of it. Many security people say it has saved lives. Do you disagree? Do you want it torn down?

3. Palestinian violence may increase regardless of what we do. We need to secure our future and understand that there will always be Palestinian violence.

4. Your last paragraph misses the point. I'm not arguing that we need to make concessions to the Palestinians as good gestures to the Palestinians. I'm saying we need to do it for ourselves. I support the security barrier and its implications concerning settlements on its east.


Very few of the Israeli settlers in "The West Bank" will move to The Negev. I have my doubts about the 18% figure. Was a house to house survey actually carried out? And even if it is correct, the amount is too marginal to make any difference.

As you well know, successive Israeli govts have allowed the building of settlements and Israel is now forced to live with the consequences.

If Israel tomorrow forcefully removed all the settlers and even pulled down "the wall", it would just lead to further attacks on "smaller Israel". It would not lead to peace but to war. Unlike Gaza, which is in the middle of nowhere, the West Bank is right bang in the middle of somewhere.

The only solution worth talking about is a peace treatry that includes
all of Israel's enemies. If Iran won't sign up to it, then it is worthless.

I have to conclude that if Israel's enemies, and in particular Iran, do not accept her right to exist, then the present status quo, including settlements, will have to remain.


Mike, you peaceniks always use Egypt as an example. The differennce is that Sadat fully aknowledged our right to our own corner of the Middle East.
The Palestinians have not done this and even the "great moderate" Abbas insists on the so-called "right of return" i.e swamping Israel with millions of Jew-hatng Jihadi Palestinians thirsting for Jewish blood.
Insisiting on the 'right of return' is denying Israel's right to exist even if you pay lip service to a 'two state solution'.
At this stage nothing can be gained from further concessions to the Palestinians.
Olmert should be acting to crush the 'Palestinian' terror network, rather than rewarding it with a Judenrein YESHA , especially since the PLO and Hamas have promised yet another terror war (what they call a Third Intifafa) once the 'disengagement' is complete.

The answer is surely not to dismantle Israel to appease monsters who shoot pregnant mothers and their little children at point blank range , or who blow up schoolbuses. Neither can Israel bow to pressure from those in the world , for whom Israel's security is not a priority. Hamas arch-terrorist Mahmoud Zahar boasted that "“The rockets have forced Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and they will end the occupation in the future,”

The PLO and Arab States have continually vowed to destroy Israel and anihilate it's people, meaning a second holocaust of Jews. They have vowed to use any Palestinian State in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a staging ground to destroy the whole of Israel and all of it's people

Farouk Kadoumi , head of the PLO's political department outlined the Palestinian strategy in 1989:" We shall pitch our tents in those places where our bullets can reach. This tent shall then form the base from which we shall pursue the next phase."

And giving Judea and Samaria over to the Palestinian terrorists puts Israeli towns and cities in closer range of the rockets. All Israeli security analysts predicted that the Gaza disengagement would bring with it , more bloodshed and terror against the Israeli people and it did.

So why encourage more bloody terror attacks. What is Israel gaining from this so-called disengagement?

We need to remember that in 1922 , 77% of the Palestine Mandate was cut off by the British to create the Arab State of Transjordan from which Jews where banned from living . Hence there has been an Arab Palestinian State since 1922 on the vast majority of land covered by the colony called Palestine , and the fact that 10% of the earth's surface is covered by Arab states, while the State of Israel barely registers on the map. Is it fair that tiny Israel must give up yet more land to the Arabs?

There are millions of Kurds, Berbers, Copts, Maronites, Chaldeans etc and others who live as minorities in the many Arab countries-in many cases persecuted and with no rights.
In some cases they have been subject to horrific genocide.
. Why is it so unjust that a small portion of the world's Arabs should live as a minority in Israel?

Giving up land is not the answer. The world must simply learn that the Jews need and are entitled to a homeland , the same as everyone else


If Israel's enemies had any sense, they would learn from her achievement, instead of following destructive authoritarian non-democratic paths.


Mike, to further what I said and to emphasize what gary was getting at. The reason Egypt was different is a point I can only make with hindsight. To be more clear, 15 years, when which the virtues of Oslo were being debated, quoting the Egypt accord had some validity. Even then there were fundamental differences (such as Egypt committing to peace, not to hoping for it, as well as good borders between the 2 nations), but the idea of land for peace had some precedence. But now, 15 years of consistency in behaviour has shown us that regardless of the o differences between Egypt and the PA that existed in 1993, these people are not looking for peace and giving control of anything to them only hurts us.

Steve, thank you

1) To be honest I don't know what they are, I know they are there, but I can't say what they are. My point is that the status quo, however unpleasant, is better than the consequences of handing over Yesha. Neither you, not Olmert is obliged to agree with me, but the evidence is on my side - ala Gaza. And as Gary pointed out, Gaza is surrounded by mostly desert abd isloted towns, wait till they start firing rockets at Netanya, Herzliya, Modiin, Raanana etc etc. As it is toens like Tulkarem are only a few Km from major Israeli cities. Now you want to bring them closer and allow them full military control. The status quo is better than that.

2) When Irael started building the barrier it said that it was not necessarily going to be the border of a pullout. And it still need not be. Granted, at over 1 mil NIS/km its an expensive temporary measure, but it has been effective and can serve Israel well until such time as a good alternative can be found.

3) AS I said, placing yourself in the firing line with no means of self defense is a interesting way of "securing our future"

4) Please explain what you believe we have to gain by a evacuation of Yesha. I would appreciate if you would explain, on any given point that implies it would have a different result from Gaza, why that result would be different.

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
Last update - 13:02 12/09/2008
Jews attacking Jews
By Antony Lerman

When I first started professionally monitoring and studying anti-Semitism almost 30 years ago, there was, broadly speaking, a shared understanding of what it was. True, historians differed over a precise definition - quite understandably, given that the term was coined only in the 1870s, and was then used to describe varieties of Jew-hatred going back 2,000 years. There was also a degree of political manipulation of the phenomenon, with both the right and the left blaming each other for causing it.

Data on anti-Semitic incidents then were often crude and sometimes deliberately misinterpreted to generate aliyah (immigration to Israel), and controversy was developing about whether anti-Zionism, or extreme vilification of Israel, was anti-Semitism.

We Jews knew who the enemy was. Since Jews do not cause anti-Semitism, we fought those who peddled theories of the world Jewish conspiracy, Holocaust denial, blood libels. Except at the very margins, we didn't fight Jews.

How things have changed. Today, bitter arguments rage about what constitutes anti-Semitism. When Jew-hatred is identified, it's mostly in the form of what many call the "new anti-Semitism" - essentially, anti-Zionism. Others (this writer included) fundamentally dispute that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are synonymous.

But whatever position you take, it's clear that a revolutionary change in the discourse about anti-Semitism has occurred: Practically no discussion about current anti-Semitism now takes place without Israel and Zionism being at its center. Judging by the vast number of books, pamphlets, articles and conferences on the subject, this trend is widely welcomed.

The equation "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" has thus become the new orthodoxy, and has even earned the seal of approval of the European Union. Its racism and anti-Semitism monitoring center (the Federal Rights Agency) produced a "working definition" of anti-Semitism, with examples of five ways in which anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rhetoric is anti-Semitic. The 2006 report of the U.K.'s All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism urged the adoption of the EU definition, and the U.S. State Department's 2008 report "Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism" is also based on it.

The redefinition of anti-Semitism has led to a further radical change in confronting the phenomenon. Many Jews are at the forefront of the growing number of anti-Israel or anti-Zionist groups. So, perceived manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism" increasingly result in Jews attacking other Jews for their alleged anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

Anti-Semitism can be disguised as anti-Zionism, and a Jew can be an anti-Semite. In principle, therefore, exposing an alleged Jewish anti-Semite is legitimate. But if you read the growing literature that does this - in print, on Web sites and in blogs - you find that it exceeds all reason: The attacks are often vitriolic, ad hominem and indiscriminate. Aspersions are cast on the Jewishness of individuals whom the attacker cannot possibly know. The charge of Jewish "self-hatred" - another way of calling someone a Jewish anti-Semite - is used ever more frequently, despite mounting evidence that it's an entirely bogus concept.

Anything from strong criticism of Israel's policies, through sympathetic critiques of Zionism, to advocacy of a one-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, is defined as anti-Zionism, when none of these positions are prima facie anti-Zionist. Many attackers endow their targets with the ability to bring disaster and dissolution to the Jewish people, thereby making it a national and religious duty for Jews to wage a war of words against other Jews.

I realize that many readers will regard these attacks as fully justified. But think for a moment about who benefits. Can it really help the fight against anti-Semitism to place the fantasy of the anti-Semitic Jew at its center? There are many issues about which Jews should argue robustly with each other, but the attack by Jew on Jew is acrimonious and demeaning - Can it do us any good? I would say no to both questions, for overwhelming reasons.

Serious discussion of current anti-Semitism - rational, objective, academically grounded - is virtually nonexistent. It is being replaced by internecine Jewish political battles and endless controversies over the alleged anti-Semitic implications of comments on Israel by public figures. Practically the entire business of studying and analyzing current anti-Semitism has been hijacked and debased by people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation. The new EU-approved definition fundamentally subverts the term because to warrant the charge of anti-Semitism, it is sufficient to hold any view ranging from criticism of the policies of the current Israeli government, to denial of Israel's right to exist - without having to subscribe to any of the elements that historians have traditionally regarded as constituting an anti-Semitic view. And it puts out of bounds the perfectly legitimate discussion of whether increased anti-Semitism is a result of Israel's actions.

This is no basis on which to develop effective policies to combat anti-Semitism.

It's a long way from the oft-repeated mantra that "anti-Semitism is not the Jews' problem, but that of the non-Jews," to this war against Jews who allegedly offer comfort to, or are themselves, anti-Semites. So far, indeed, as to suggest that we have lost our way.

As befits a time when fear is in vogue, we have successfully widened the pool of our enemies - as if by doing so, we are somehow going to be safer.

Antony Lerman is director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London. He writes here in a personal capacity.


Have a name, twit?


The enemies of Israel want the physical elimination of the Jewish people from the Land of Israel. This constitutes anti-Semitism.
The point is that they want a Judenreihn "Palestine" the same way that Hitler wanted a Judenreihn Europe.
The anti-Zionists claim that they are not anti-Semites but that think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel.
The anti-Zionists claim that they are not anti-Semites but that think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel.

The anti-Zionists claim that they are not anti-Semites but that the only children on earth whose being blown up is okay if it serves a good cause are Jewish children.

As regards the so-called 1 state solution favoured by so many sophisticated leftwing intellectuals today, we can discuss this all day and all night , but dismembering Israel into a single Arab dominated state means a second holocaust.

It means methodical massacre of millions of Jews , of hundreds of thousands of Jewish children.

Anyone who pushes for this '1 state solution' is actually pushing for a second holocaust.

Denying a nation's right to exist is genocidal racism, akin to Nazism, hence in my opinion , anti-Zionism is Nazism.

Only the hard-hearted, hate-filled and cowardly will deny Israel the right to exist and defend herself
Anti-Zionism is racism , as it involves hatred of an entire people i.e the Jews of Israel. I believe anti-Zionism ,is in fact , far more contemptible that traditional anti-Semitism.
The new anti-Semitism is cloaked in the language of political correctness and academic language, but the end goal is the same, genocide of Jews. On university campuses, in the media, in the halls of the United Nations, and in Third World governments (like the government of SA) , prejudice runs strong. The leaders of today’s Nuremberg rallies are supposedly ‘enlightened’ and ‘progressive’ Left-wing academics, as Israel is pilloried, without the slightest compassion for the men, women and children of that tiny country. On the contrary, it is condemned by a coterie of malignant narcissists for destruction.

Of course the Israel-haters deny hotly that they are antisemites: The first thing students learn today in the ‘humanities’ departments on university campuses across the world is that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are different. Many Jewish ultra-Leftists lead the “burn Israel” movement. In fact it could be argued that the new antisemitism was founded by malignant high priest of Marxist academia Noam Chomsky, together with his partner in hate, Arab propagandist Edward Said. Indeed, the Jewish Israel-haters are often the most callous and vicious, hoping that expunging five million Israeli men, women and children from the face of the earth will make themselves more universal and progressive in the world today. It is only the ‘backward Israelis’ who get in the way of the place of Diaspora Jewish Marxists as leaders of the ‘progressive vanguard’ once more. So innocents must die in the millions!
After all, is it not antisemitism to deny Jews the right to live in Israel? Is a Jewish child in Israel, gunned down in her bed by Palestinian goons in 2002, any different than a Jewish child in Poland, gunned down in her bed by Nazi goons in 1942?

Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out the truth when he said 37 years ago: “Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.”

There is no logic in the intensity of the hate of the new antisemites, as Israel is condemned for every action taken to defend herself, by the same ones who are so silent in the face of massacres of Israeli women and children by Palestinian killers. The latter are seen as the victims and the former as the aggressors in this macabre Orwellian theater.

Indeed, as we saw with the rise of Hitler, when the world loses its moral compass, there is no limit to what they will stoop to, and no amount of politically correct jargon and Marxist obfuscation can hide this from us all.

Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism at it's worst. Period.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.