Zionists thrill that Obama will recognize ancient Jewish connection to ‘homeland’ (undoing his Cairo error)

Israel/Palestine

Reporting on a White House conference call the other day laying out Obama’s purposes in Israel, Alex Kane noted the importance to Israel supporters of symbolic actions the president is scheduled to take later this week to affirm an ancient Jewish connection to the land. These gestures, which include laying a wreath on the tomb of Theodor Herzl, are aimed at correcting Obama’s earlier political mistake in his 2009 Cairo speech of justifying Israel’s existence only with reference to the Holocaust (seized on by religious neoconservative David Frum at the time.)

This is now a major theme in Zionist appreciation of the Obama itinerary:

From the Jerusalem Post:

At the [Israel] museum, Obama will view the Dead Sea Scrolls, which US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes described as “a testament, of course, to the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.”

In his first term, Obama visited Cairo and gave a much touted speech reaching out to the Arab world. Many Israelis, however, were critical of the link he seemed to make in that address between Israel’s founding and the Holocaust, while not providing any reference to Jews’ historic attachment to the Land of Israel.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the visit to Herzl’s grave both suggest an attempt to correct that omission and assuage Israeli concerns about Obama’s views on the country’s history and legitimacy.

Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, said the White House was still trying to change the negative narrative that the Cairo speech first implanted in the minds of Israelis, and that the unusual stop at the grave of the founder of modern political Zionism demonstrated that intention.

“I don’t recall… a [US] president laying a wreath on the tomb of Theodor Herzl,” the seasoned diplomat noted.

From American Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs writing in Haaretz:

President Obama should affirm the Jewish people’s historic connection with its homeland…

In his remarkable Cairo speech at the beginning of his first term, President Obama eloquently set before the Muslim world the need to accept the legitimacy of Israel and offered a strong statement against Holocaust denial. Yet the absence in that speech of an explicit affirmation of the deep and abiding 3,200 year old connection of the Jewish people with its historic homeland was an omission that disappointed and puzzled those in the Jewish community who know him well and are familiar with his deep appreciation for this connection. His presence in Israel now offers a unique opportunity – in the sites he visits and the words he utters – to convey vividly to the world that appreciation. In that connection, we note the symbolic importance of the President’s decision to lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism.

From the Forward‘s Nathan Guttman, on the “messages” in Obama’s itinerary:

By invoking the Holocaust as the root rationale for Israel’s creation, argued Obama’s critics, the president ignored the claims of the Jewish people to the land as something going back to the time of Abraham. Some even claimed that by not mentioning this historical tie, Obama was, in fact, supporting the anti-Zionist narrative, which views the Jews as outsiders who came to Palestine after being chased out of Europe only to make the Palestinians pay for the crimes of the Nazis…

In his visit, starting Wednesday, Obama will make sure this impression is rectified. He is expected to address the Jewish people’s roots in the land of Israel in his speech and public comments. And he will do so in a symbolic way through his visit to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit.

From Jeffrey Goldberg:

The Cairo speech had a chilling effect because, to Israelis, the Holocaust alone doesn’t justify the existence of their state. “The Holocaust doesn’t explain why we’re here,” said Yossi Klein Halevii, a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. “The Holocaust explains why we fight as fiercely as we do to stay here, but it doesn’t explain our rootedness.”

In Cairo, Halevi said, Obama failed to acknowledge “Jewish indigenousness in the region,” the idea that history — the uninterrupted Jewish presence in the lands of ancient Israel for more than 3,000 years — justifies the modern Jewish claim to a state there. “In Cairo, Obama was asking the Arab world to feel sorry for the Jews,” he said, “and by doing so, he inadvertently played into the hands of those whose response is, ‘Well, if there was a Holocaust, let the Germans pay for it, not the Arabs.’ That’s a reasonable response if you don’t believe that Jews are from here.”

The absence of Zionist thought in the speech was unhelpful, though not thematically inexplicable (after all, it was a speech meant to woo Muslims, not Jews). But Obama is clearly acquainted with the ideas that energized Jewish nationalism.

Gosh what a bath of self-regard! There are two different interpretations of this theme. The “historic connection to the land” is radically important right now because Israel’s justification narrative is tanking globally as it grabs the entire   Holy Land for itself. Or, just maybe, Obama is embracing this idea in order to say goodbye to these religious fanatics. Obama knows what Ben Ehrenreich knows, that Israel is spiritually/politically bankrupted by occupation; and it helps to give someone something when you want to break up with them.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

177 Responses

  1. just
    March 17, 2013, 12:58 pm

    Please read Aaron David Miller’s bleak piece in the Washington Post:

    “And Obama’s naive push for a settlement freeze and apparent lack of an emotional connection to Israel have contributed to the tension.”

    link to washingtonpost.com

    • Krauss
      March 17, 2013, 2:10 pm

      ‘Naive’?

      This guy is a lunatic. He blames Obama for his ‘lack of an emotional connection’.

      Oh gosh! I wonder why? Maybe because you have open incitement against black people in Israel, calling them a ‘cancer on our body’, you have interior ministers declaring that “Israel belongs to us, the white man”, you have a strong, and increasingly stronger, Apartheid system in place.

      And Obama, a man acutely aware of racial disparities, is supposed to ignore the Palestinians all-together? He’s a coward enough for ignoring the entire situation.

      I’m reminded of Eli Valley’s brilliant cartoon, seen here:
      link to 972mag.com

      Miller has the same mindset.

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Obama said he was reminded of little Jewish Israeli kids when he looked at his daughters sleeping, and then he said he was reminded of the son he never had when he looked at that black kid killed in Florida by the somewhat lighter Zimmerman.

        You can be sure he never had such a thought when and if he saw a pic of Rachel Corrie, or even the browner Turkish American youth killed aboard the Gaza flotilla boat.

        He’s very selective in his public tears. That’s how politicians are.

    • traintosiberia
      March 18, 2013, 12:06 am

      Never hurt the feelings. Never. Every time anyone dares to hurt the feelings of the Zionist , Israel will answer with more settlements.
      Oops! That is not the end of the history. Once the feelings are respected by some statements ,Zionist will seize on that saying ” you supported our claims .Now act on it”

    • traintosiberia
      March 18, 2013, 12:12 am

      Never hurt the feelings. Never. Every time anyone dares to hurt the feelings of the Zionist , Israel will answer with more settlements.
      Oops! That is not the end of the history. Once the feelings are respected by some statements ,Zionist will seize on that saying ” you supported our claims .Now act on it”j

    • Kathleen
      March 18, 2013, 8:20 pm

      Aaron David Miller has been the face of the so called liberal Zionist walking softly. Aaron David Miller is a racist down deep just like Peter Beinart.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 9:07 am

        Miller’s book is excellent. I’d recommend it. His view of peacemaking is the most realistic. He’s been a big critic of Obama and was an equally big critic of Clinton. He is above all a practitioner of realpolitik. I wouldn’t exactly call him a liberal Zionist.

      • K Renner
        March 19, 2013, 11:33 am

        no, he’s even worse.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 1:52 pm

        How so?

  2. edwardm
    March 17, 2013, 1:13 pm

    So…. If some my ancestors come from a place 2000 years ago, I get to move there with an uzi and a mobile home and set up where ever I like? But… If I was BORN there I have no right to live there?

    • mondonut
      March 17, 2013, 1:28 pm

      edwardm says: But… If I was BORN there I have no right to live there?
      =============================================
      Are you proposing limiting the RoR to those who were born within present day Israel?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 1:44 pm

        lol, you’re so eager for enough time pass there will be no one left alive from 48. there’s a big difference between 2000 years and what we’re talking about mnut. a very big difference.

      • mondonut
        March 17, 2013, 10:19 pm

        Annie Robbins says:lol, you’re so eager for enough time pass there will be no one left alive from 48.
        ==============================================
        No, I could not care less about who is left alive from 48, I am of the opinion that the RoR does not exist at all.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 10:29 pm

        I am of the opinion that the RoR does not exist at all.

        so you do not recognize the israel law of “return”.

      • mondonut
        March 17, 2013, 10:54 pm

        Annie Robbins says: so you do not recognize the israel law of “return”.
        ===================================================
        Despite everyone’s repeated attempts to conflate the RoR with Israeli immigration policy they really have nothing to do with each other. Israel as a sovereign state has the right to define its own policy – so yes, I would recognize the law of return.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 1:02 am

        iow, it does ‘exist’ for jews. and when you say “does not exist at all” you don’t really mean that.

      • talknic
        March 18, 2013, 2:29 am

        @ mondonut “No, I could not care less about who is left alive from 48″

        Incl Jews who fled or immigrated from Arab States?

        ” I am of the opinion that the RoR does not exist at all”

        Incl Jews who fled from Arab States? Germany? BTW Germany grants Jews RoR. Now why would they do that if there is no RoR?

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 9:19 am

        talknic says: Incl Jews who fled from Arab States? Germany? BTW Germany grants Jews RoR. Now why would they do that if there is no RoR?
        ==================================================
        Because they chose to, as is their right. Not because they were compelled to against their wishes.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 18, 2013, 1:22 pm

        LOL! You must be a contortionist in order to have come up with that. Yep…in fact I can see your head up your ass all the way from here. :)

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 2:01 pm

        Because they chose to, as is their right. Not because they were compelled to against their wishes.

        Like All dumbshit Zionists, you’ve never read the Geneva Conventions. They are recognized as customary law that is binding on non-signatories. Articles 6 and 49 prohibit 1) any permanent population displacement; and 2) repatriation as an intermediate step to officially terminating the protections provided to civilians by the 4th Convention.

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 3:57 pm

        Hostage says: Like All dumbshit Zionists, you’ve never read the Geneva Conventions.
        ===================================================
        Do you also imagine the 1949 Convention to be retroactive to 1948? As well as somehow applying to descendants? Or to the many, many Palestinians who have citizenship in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere?

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 4:24 pm

        Annie Robbins says: iow, it does ‘exist’ for jews. and when you say “does not exist at all” you don’t really mean that.
        =================================================
        Nope. The right to enter Israel is restricted to whomever Israel chooses to extend the right. No different than every other country on this planet, including the one that you and I live in.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 1:53 pm

        nut – Just read “international law for idiots*”

        *No personal disparagement. Referring to well-established self-help book series

      • mondonut
        March 17, 2013, 10:24 pm

        sardelapasti says:nut – Just read “international law for idiots*”
        =================================
        No offense taken, far worse is allowed around here to those of us on the wrong side of the site’s opinion. As for international law, there is nothing that provides a RoR to those who left, much less to their descendants .

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 1:24 am

        As for international law, there is nothing that provides a RoR to those who left, much less to their descendants .

        left? as far as i am concerned this is a form of nakba denial.

        far worse is allowed around here to those of us on the wrong side of the site’s opinion

        far worse is allowed around here by those of you on the wrong side of the site’s opinion, absolutely. and don’t we all know it. day after day after day our site is infested with ideas and opinions that are so offensive it’s hard for me to fathom how zionists such as yourself can justify ethnic cleansing. right now we’ve got a new poster here over on the double standard thread, screaming at us in caps, calling human rights activists ‘parasites’ while lecturing us on rhetoric and how to “discuss these matters in a less hysterical insulting manner”. it’s the height of hypocrisy. we’ve got trolls trying to turn the comments threads into endless discussions of moderation rules and what should and should not be allowed, like at dkos. if i had my druthers posters like that would not be allowed here, ever. so please do not lecture me about how hard it is for those of you ‘on the wrong side’ because you have no idea what you’re talking about and, noone has jailed you here. this is not an occupation. no one invades your house at night and drags away your children to torture them. get it? your life ain’t so bad and you’re welcome to leave and go post on some stand with us blog if it’s too tough for you here.

      • talknic
        March 18, 2013, 2:32 am

        mondonut “As for international law, there is nothing that provides a RoR to those who left”

        The UNHCR disagrees with you. The United Nations General Assembly disagrees with you and the UNSC dis-agrees with you and International Law disagrees with you link to unispal.un.org

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 11:32 am

        As for international law, there is nothing that provides a RoR to those who left, much less to their descendants .

        Search Hostage’s archives. The international law you claim doesn’t exist is cited exhaustively.

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 4:21 pm

        talknic says: The UNHCR disagrees with you. The United Nations General Assembly disagrees with you and the UNSC dis-agrees with you and International Law disagrees with you link to unispal.un.org
        ==========================================
        Neither the UNHCR nor the General Assembly has the power to create the rights that you refer to. Same goes for the very strange link that has nothing to do with rights.

      • edwardm
        March 17, 2013, 2:05 pm

        Hasbara says: Are you proposing limiting the RoR to those who were born within present day Israel?
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        No. Are you proposing Ro”R” means you get an uzi, a trailer and an internet connection? Even though you’ve never set foot in the place you get to “return” to “your” ancient homeland? Perhaps you and the Prez. could both stand to take a few reading comprehension courses, not to mention basic logic. Don’t put words in my mouth and I won’t have to tell you to shut your festering yap. Eat me.

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 4:09 pm

        edwardm says: … shut your festering yap. Eat me.
        =======================================
        I surrender to your reasoned and faultless logic.

      • Blake
        March 17, 2013, 3:18 pm

        Mondonut: it’s international law and it’s binding. It’s not negotiable.

      • john h
        March 17, 2013, 4:50 pm

        That’s true, but where’s the teeth? Actions [and inaction] speak louder than words.

      • mondonut
        March 18, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Blake says: Mondonut: it’s international law and it’s binding. It’s not negotiable.
        =====================================
        I’ll try this again with less objectionable language…

        There is no binding International Law that provides a RoR to the Palestinians. That said, the Palestinians have every right to choose to not negotiate the point (thereby making it non-negotiable). And by doing so they only sacrifice the possibility of a negotiated 2SS.

      • RoHa
        March 18, 2013, 9:07 pm

        “There is no binding International Law that provides a RoR to the Palestinians.”

        And once again a Zionist appeals to law to avoid moral obilgations.

      • Talkback
        March 19, 2013, 10:00 am

        What I learned from Mondonut today:

        The Nazis too had the right to expell and denationalize Jews and the Jews had no right to return, because Germany was a souvereign state and had the right to make respective racists laws. And the Nazis too didn’t commit any racist crime especially not the crime of genocide against Jews, because no Geneva or Genocide Convention existed at this time. And international treaties like Conventions or the Declarations of Human Rights are not longer legally binding, if the General Assembly recognizes them in one of its resolutions.

        If only you ignorant people would take more Ziocane to acknowledge Mondonut’s ingenuity!

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 11:07 am

        “What I learned from Mondonut today:

        “The Nazis too had the right to expell and denationalize Jews and the Jews had no right to return, because Germany was a souvereign state and had the right to make respective racists laws.”

        Exactly. Like I always say, if you wait long enough, the zionist will always justify the Holocaust.

      • mondonut
        March 19, 2013, 5:40 pm

        Talkback and Woody Tanaka say: … Exactly. Like I always say, if you wait long enough, the zionist will always justify the Holocaust.
        =================================================
        Pure ignorance. And right on cue, you cannot support your arguments so it is straight to the Nazi stuff. I will not dignify your hateful comparisons but I will point out (again) that treaties are not retroactive unless agreed to, the Declarations of Human Rights are not legally binding, nor are resolutions emanating from the General Assembly.

      • Blake
        March 22, 2013, 10:45 am

        @ Mondonut: The General Assembly affirmed the NATIVE PALESTINIAN right of return 135 or more times. They’re binding and won’t change.

      • mondonut
        March 22, 2013, 1:18 pm

        Blake says: @ Mondonut: The General Assembly affirmed the NATIVE PALESTINIAN right of return 135 or more times. They’re binding and won’t change.
        =================================================
        There is no such thing as a binding General Assembly resolution.

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 6:53 pm

        There is no such thing as a binding General Assembly resolution.

        In fact, every time the question has been addressed to the UN judicial organs they have advised that the member states did give the General Assembly the authority to adopt decisions in Article 18 of the UN Charter (a binding multilateral treaty).

        Those decisions can be legally dispositive or amount to a formulation of the law. The overwhelming majority of post-WWII international laws are codified in declarations and conventions contained in General Assembly resolutions. See for example the UN page on Declarations and Conventions Contained in General Assembly Resolutions and tell us they are not legally binding: link to un.org

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 7:16 pm

        P.S. Note that there several pages of Declarations and Conventions that can be reached by the small list of links at the top of the page:
        2000 – present 1990–1999 1980–1989 1970–1979 1946–1969

      • mondonut
        March 23, 2013, 12:56 pm

        Hostage says: See for example the UN page on Declarations and Conventions Contained in General Assembly Resolutions and tell us they are not legally binding.
        ========================================
        OK, they are not legally binding. Declarations and reaffirmations of existing International Law does not provide binding force to the UNGA, which the UN itself readily admits…

        link to un.org

        The General Assembly is not a world government – its resolutions are not legally binding upon Member States.

        link to unhcr.org

        While the decisions of the General Assembly have no legally binding force for Governments, they carry the weight of world opinion on major international issues,…

      • Hostage
        March 24, 2013, 1:28 pm

        OK, they are not legally binding. Declarations and reaffirmations of existing International Law does not provide binding force to the UNGA, which the UN itself readily admits…

        That’s not correct. I’d suggest you go ask North Korea if a General Assembly “Uniting for Peace” resolution is legally binding or has legal consequences? The Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute just adopted an amendment which employs the General Assembly’s Definition of the Crime of Aggression. It will allow the Security Council to refer cases against non-signatory states.

        Here are a few more examples:
        ======================================================
        The General Assembly appointed Count Folk Bernadotte as the UN Mediator in accordance with A/RES/186 (S2) link to un.org

        See Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (13 February 1946) link to un.org

        He was “on mission for the United Nations” when he was assassinated by members of the Israeli underground. The General Assembly requested an opinion from the ICJ as to whether or not it could hold the state legally responsible and enforce claims when persons are injured on a mission it had authorized on behalf of the UN Organization? The Court ruled that decisions of the General Assembly did have legal consequences; that it could pursue and enforce claims; and that member states are required to assist it in accordance with Articles 104 and 2(5) of the UN Charter:

        Article 2(5) All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
        ..
        Article 104: The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

        * Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations
        link to icj-cij.org
        ======================================================
        France attempted to avoid paying the assessments levied by the General Assembly for the peace keeping force that was deployed in the aftermath of its invasion of Egypt in 1956 in accordance with resolutions 996 et seq.
        * A/RES/1000 (ES-1) link to unispal.un.org

        It argued that the General Assembly had exceeded its powers under the Charter when it adopted the “Uniting for Peace” resolutions and deployed the force during an emergency special session. It held that Article 17 of the UN Charter did not apply in cases where the General Assembly had acted ultra vires.

        The Court advised that the Charter granted the Security Council primary, but not exclusive, responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It noted that the Charter also assigns responsibility to the General Assembly for the maintenance of international peace and security (Articles 11,12,15, & 18) It said:

        “the functions and powers conferred by the Charter on the General Assembly are not confined to discussion, consideration, the initiation of studies and the making of recommendations; they are not merely hortatory. Article 18 deals with “decisions” of the General Assembly “on important questions”. These “decisions” do indeed include certain recommendations, but the others have dispositive force and effect.

        Article 18 empowers the General Assembly to adopt a decision on any question. The members have a treaty obligation to render it every assistance in enforcing those decisions in accordance with Articles 104 and 2(5).
        * See Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter) link to icj-cij.org
        ======================================================

        In Namibia case the Court advised the General Assembly could legally terminate a mandate without the consent of the mandatory power:

        For it would not be correct to assume that, because the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in specific cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design.

        ======================================================
        See the attempt by the US to keep the PLO Mission to the UN out of the United States:
        * Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations A/RES/169 (II) (31 October 1947) link to un.org
        * Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947
        link to icj-cij.org
        ======================================================
        Bosnian Genocide:
        * Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 December 1948) A/RES/260 (III) link to un.org

        * Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)
        link to icj-cij.org
        ======================================================
        In Nicaragua v. United States, the ICJ ruled that one or more General Assembly resolutions reflect binding customary international law:

        * Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970)
        link to un.org
        * Definition of Aggression (14 December 1974) A/RES/3314 (XXIX) link to un.org
        * Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) link to icj-cij.org
        ======================================================
        Israeli Wall Case:
        * International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966);
        *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (16 December 1966) A/RES/2200 (XXI)
        link to un.org
        * Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970) link to un.org
        * Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory link to icj-cij.org

      • Blake
        March 25, 2013, 7:30 pm

        Thanks Hostage. I swear they are sent to annoy.

      • Hostage
        March 28, 2013, 3:25 am

        That should probably read “I swear they are sent paid to annoy” in a few cases:

        The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad.

        –See Rona Kuperboim, Thought-police is here link to ynetnews.com

      • Sumud
        March 17, 2013, 6:37 pm

        Are you proposing limiting the RoR to those who were born within present day Israel?

        I favour Return of any sort being limited to those defined by the UN as refugees. No more nutjob settlers from Brooklyn shitting all over the occupied West Bank.

      • EUR1069
        March 17, 2013, 7:17 pm

        @mondonut: Palestinians who were kicked out of their land 64 years ago have more right to return then those who allegedly left 2000 years ago. Besides, 2000 years ago you were the same people, so if you want to live in peace, be the same people again in one state, with the same citizenship rights. I don’t want to hear any more of the “two state solution” garbage.

      • Blake
        March 22, 2013, 10:47 am

        “same people” is debatable because there is no literature to prove the Romans , who were not in the habit of ethnic cleansing, cleansed anyone out. But the rest of your comment is a good one.

    • German Lefty
      March 17, 2013, 1:49 pm
  3. seafoid
    March 17, 2013, 1:16 pm

    “Obama will view the Dead Sea Scrolls, which US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes described as “a testament, of course, to the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.”

    I wonder what the Dead Sea scrolls say about torture and the cultivation of mass hatred and paranoia as a means of fetishising land.
    It seems that the cost of actualising the Jewish state was very expensive in moral terms.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:15 pm

      @ seafoid
      Seems like much of the Dead Sea scrolls’ subject matter is exceedingly mundane: link to gnosis.org

      • bilal a
        March 17, 2013, 11:51 pm

        The Dead Sea Svrolls are 1st century Christian documents according to Professor Eisenmann:

        link to youtube.com

        Do the Israelis have any non Christian references ?

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 8:38 am

        Prof. Eisenmann’s theory ties the Dead Sea Scrolls to early Judeo-Christians. All his evidence is circumstancial at best.

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 8:52 am

        The scrolls are being digitized and made available online:
        link to dss.collections.imj.org.il

  4. sydnestel
    March 17, 2013, 1:21 pm

    Does no one see the irony of labeling “President’s decision to lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism” as supporting “the Jewish people’s roots in the land of Israel.”

    Herzl could have cared less about the Jewish peoples roots. He supported establishing a Jewish state in Uganda (or anywhere else if it had been on offer.) He wanted the language of the Jewish state to be German. Herzl was 100% motivated by European antisemitism. (Not the Holocaust, obviously, he died 35 years before it.)

    As for the symbolic value of the Dead Sea Scrolls in proving the Jewish people’s roots in the land of Israel – most of them were looted from the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions regarding removing cultural artifacts from occupied territories. Furthermore, these documents pre-date the split of Judaism and Christianity, so they are at least as relevant to establish Christian roots in the holy land as Jewish ones. And finally, when one considers that many Palestinians are in fact genealogically descendant from the ancient Jews who wrote and read those texts, and that many Jews are descendants of converts over the centuries, the whole thing becomes absurd. Except, or course, that it makes good propaganda to claim the scrolls as proof of an exclusive historical Jewish tie the land.

    • Stone
      March 17, 2013, 2:02 pm

      Eh, the Jews have been doing their bit not to remind the so-called Christian populations of the US and other places that the Christians of the ME do not matter so much. Downplaying their suffering at the hands of the Occupation.

      • EUR1069
        March 17, 2013, 10:07 pm

        @Stone: Ain’t that the Gospel truth! (no pun intended LOL). In fact, the perverted, twisted & downright sick marriage of convenience between Israel & the Christian Zionists in the U.S. (of Hagee brand) notwithstanding, note that Christian proselytization among Jews is not allowed, very much in a Saudi fashion – try to preach Jesus in Bethlehem & you’ll quickly make some Palestinian friends behind bars.

    • john h
      March 17, 2013, 4:55 pm

      Absolutely. Thanks for stating what should be obvious.

    • EUR1069
      March 17, 2013, 10:00 pm

      “.. many Palestinians are in fact genealogically descendant from the ancient Jews who wrote and read those texts, and that many Jews are descendants of converts over the centuries, the whole thing becomes absurd.”

      My sentiments precisely. Amen.

  5. Stephen Shenfield
    March 17, 2013, 1:38 pm

    The international legitimacy that Israel enjoyed in its early years (outside the Arab world) was based mostly on the perceived need for a refuge for Jews in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Gromyko’s speech to the UN conveying Soviet support for the establishment of Israel presented the issue in this way. The justification on the basis of ancient mythology has never had much impact, except I suppose on fundamentalist Christians. The fact that the Zionists are now demanding recognition on this mythological basis shows how far they have lost contact with reality and is one of the reasons why Israel is now rapidly losing the legitimacy it once had.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2013, 1:50 pm

      that’s what i think exactly stephen. it’s really a big push to justify further expansion and the settlements and everything. their case is so weak they think this hasbara/framing about the historical will suffice. it won’t, people are not that stupid. it’s like holocaust out, mythology in.

      and goldberg knows it:

      That’s a reasonable response if you don’t believe that Jews are from here.

      pleeeease…as if ‘ancestral rights’ = real estate deeds.. it’s nuts.

      • American
        March 17, 2013, 2:13 pm

        “it’s like holocaust out, mythology in.”….annie

        lol, … it’s more like……If you don’t accept our mythology then you’re anti semites trying to holocaust us!!!!!

      • Blank State
        March 17, 2013, 7:48 pm

        “…..it won’t, people are not that stupid”

        You gotta be kidding me, Annie. Obviously, people ARE that stupid, or the Hasbara efforts would not have been so successful to date. You must not be talking to Joe Blow on the street. Ignorance about our relationship with Israel abets policy, hence the weaseling you see Obama engaged in. He tried, initially, to formulate a policy plan based on reality, as evidenced by his Cairo speech. Naive, yes, but I think there was some sincerity in it. But it is the public’s ignorance, that you deny, that he must shape his policies in regards to Isr/Pal. Politically, he must shape policy to fit the hasbara, for it is the hasbara that has shaped public opinion. The actions and posturing we are now witnessing from this feckless coward is designed to fit the misconceptions and disinformation that has formed the public’s perception of Israel.

        You bet, people ARE that stupid. If not, we wouldn’t be were we are today in our relationship with Israel. And I realize many here think that the public is getting “smarter”, but I just don’t see it. Talk to the man on the street, and you will be hard pressed to find anyone that is not “stupid” when it comes to thier knowledge in regards to Isreal. Remember, you folks here are an anomoly, a small small segment of society that have bothered to inform themselves beyond the horseshit we are force fed by the media. Most folks are listening to the ilk such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Anderson, Huckabee, Maddow, Mathews…etc. They are stupid because they are purposely MADE stupid by these despicable partisan mouthpieces. Thier ignorance is sowed and nurtured and carefully directed into a desired mindset. That stupidity ain’t going away easily, and it sure as hell ain’t going away quickly. If the American public strays too far from thier infatuation with Israel, then Israel will simply create a “reason” to them to return to the fold. They ain’t beyond murdering a sizable chunk of us to bring us back in line.

      • peeesss
        March 18, 2013, 2:28 am

        Blank State. Sad to say , your analysis is right on. The vast majority , the “Man ” in the street , are “stupid” be it because of the Zio MSM, racism against people they perceive of color and Islam, or just don’t give a damn. But Obama is not stupid. His pandering to Israeli Jewish “sensitivities”. and now mythology, has destroyed the remaining US credibility throughout the world, in particular the Arab/Muslim countries. The only thing left for him to do and make him honored in Israel is to lead the US into a military conflagration with Iran before his term is over.

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 10:58 am

        ”You must not be talking to Joe Blow on the street. Ignorance about our relationship with Israel abets policy, hence the weaseling you see Obama engaged in. “…Blank State

        Joe Blow has been fed hasbara by the msm for 60 years.. However…..there are people, more all the time, taking notice of the Israeli infiltration and pointing out at least the ridiculousness of it..like so:

        Mississippi lawmakers debate pro-Israel resolution
        Debate on Israel’s boundaries bogs Senate
        By Phil West
        March 15, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.

        JACKSON — State senators Friday spent nearly as much time debating a pro-Israel resolution, which has no force of law, as they did discussing how more than $2 billion worth of taxpayers’ money would be spent a day earlier.

        “Why on earth have we gotten in the middle of this?” state Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory asked. “Is this why the people of Mississippi sent us here?”
        Bryan triggered the lengthy debate when he questioned details of Senate Concurrent Resolution 562, which commends “the nation of Israel for its cordial and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States and with the state of Mississippi.”
        Senators approved the resolution 28-7, with the remaining 17 members either declining to vote or not in the chamber.
        The resolution noted that Israel occupies territory it received under “the oldest recorded deed, as recorded in the Old Testament.”
        Bryan tried to amend the resolution by removing the language about the deed and a section that recognized “that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others.”
        “The boundaries of Israel are a matter of great difficultly that needs to be resolved, and, mercy sakes, we all support Israel but it’s not for us to hold forth on what its boundaries should be,” Bryan said.

        He challenged Sen. Nancy Collins, R-Tupelo, a resolution supporter who appeared unsure of Israel’s current boundaries and whether the Jewish state’s boundaries include the Sinai Peninsula.
        Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula after the 1967 war with Egypt but no longer does.
        “After all, it’s our scriptures that say pray for Israel, and those who pray for Israel will prosper,” Collins said.

        Some senators, by that point, had heard enough, and Sen. Willie Simmons, D-Cleveland, tried to get the matter tabled or set aside.
        “It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the budget of Mississippi,” Simmons said. “It seems we were wasting a lot of taxpayers’ money, so we should lay it on the table.”
        That motion failed, but it did help bring the debate to a conclusion.
        Senators spent the better part of an hour debating the measure, which is about the same amount of time they spent on funding the state’s education programs at $2.04 billion.”

        This is happening more frequently….not that it will stop the Zio cult from rushing pell mell to their appointment in Samaraa and taking the US with it. But people are noticing and saying ‘what the hell’ is this Israel crap doing pervading every single body of authority in the US.
        “They” say all politics is local….well the zionist infiltration is getting more ‘locally’ noticable all the time by the sane people.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 18, 2013, 1:31 pm

        “The boundaries of Israel are a matter of great difficultly that needs to be resolved, and, mercy sakes, we all support Israel but it’s not for us to hold forth on what its boundaries should be,” Bryan said.

        The Mexicans should use that line to argue the same for themselves, particularly, because their claim has more footing on reality & validity to reclaim to CA, NM, AZ, TX and all other territories stolen from them by force by the US than those of “ISreal” on Palestine.

      • ritzl
        March 18, 2013, 2:02 pm

        And this nonsense from a state that actually counts on Iran to help it solve its chronic public health issues in the Delta region.

        link to fic.nih.gov

        I wonder what Israel did for Mississippi to deserve this consideration.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 12:11 pm

        @ MK_Ultra “The Mexicans should use that line to argue the same for themselves, particularly, because their claim has more footing on reality & validity to reclaim to CA, NM, AZ, TX and all other territories stolen from them by force by the US…”

        Slight problem. The US legally annexed Mexican territories by conducting a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of those territories (self determination). A referendum was then carried out amongst US citizens asking if they wanted to annex those Mexican territories and citizens to the US. link to tsl.state.tx.us

        The US purchased Alaska 1867. Alaskans approved statehood in 1946 (self determination), adopted a constitution in 1955, President Eisenhower announced Alaska’s entrance into the Union as the 49th state January 3, 1959.

        Hawaii, via a treaty (more self determination) link to morganreport.org

        The US’s custom of recognizing self determination in the acquisition of territory thru annexation, was instrumental in the legal process passing into Customary International Law, which lead the US to ratify the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) wherein the acquisition of territory by war became illegal. ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 4:36 pm

        “The US legally annexed Mexican territories by conducting a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of those territories (self determination). ”

        Hardly. They “Mexican citizens” who were white men from American who were looking to expand westward. The Mexicans knew there was little they could do to stop it, given that Texas was (and is) a barren, inhospitable dung heap, with indefensible borders and far from any semblance of civilization, so they tried to accomodate the invading whites. The invaders stabbed the Mexicans in the back and fomented a war in an attempt to steal even more Mexican land, and ended up stealing half of the State of Mexico in the process.

        “The US purchased Alaska 1867.”

        From Russia, not from the native Alaskans. No one asked them if they wanted to be part of the Czar’s empire and no one asked them if they wanted to be part of Uncle Sucker’s empire. By the time the vote came around, the place was lousy with misplaced white men from the lower 48.

        “Hawaii, via a treaty”

        HA! Hawaii was a monarchy, run by native Hawaiians when white men from America (notice THAT pattern) with the help of the US military (notice THAT pattern) overthrough the established government and established one in which the white man and their companies had the power. These American white men carried out this crime specifically to get America (Land of the Free [if you're white] and Home of the Brave [who specialize in dispatching armed goons to go kill non-whites overseas])to steal the islands, which they did with that “treaty.”

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 9:16 am

        Ancestral rights may not be a great claim, but it’s a better claim than most Americans have to live in America.

        Nobody’s national claims are really based in anything other than history’s verdict. That’s why it’s unjust to judge the claims of one state but not all the others.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 11:05 am

        nah, there’s nothing ‘unjust’ about judging what israel is doing. colonialism is the same whereever you do it. it’s theft and ethnic cleansing. zionist are just trying to justify it by propagating this ‘Ancestral rights’ biblical theory. it’s simply not recognized as a ‘right’ to colonize. no amount of propaganda will change that.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 11:20 am

        @ hophmi

        “Ancestral rights may not be a great claim, but it’s a better claim than most Americans have to live in America”

        Americans live in America. Israelis live in Israel AND they want to live in “territories occupied”, which is illegal under International Law, the UN Charter and the relevant GCs. Their ancestral rights carry no legal weight outside of Israel. Same applies to non-Jewish Israelis BTW.

        “Nobody’s national claims are really based in anything other than history’s verdict”

        Uh huh. History ain’t finished yet

        “That’s why it’s unjust to judge the claims of one state but not all the others”

        All the others aren’t illegally acquiring other folks territory by war, illegally annexing, illegally settling.

        I’m quite certain you purposefully don’t want to get it. Because anyone stupid enough not to get it would never have been capable of learning to breath in and out.

      • eljay
        March 19, 2013, 11:22 am

        >> Ancestral rights may not be a great claim …

        “Ancestral rights” claims are one thing. Individuals and their descendants up to n generations removed from the region formerly known as Mandate Palestine may have valid “ancestral rights” claims to land or other possessions in that region.

        Biblically-based “rights” claims – such as the blanket “right” of “return” for any and all Jews to the Promised Land of the Supremacist “Jewish State” of Greater Israel – are worthless.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:20 pm

      @ Stephen Shenfield
      Another reason is that the USSR no longer exists–Israel has no strategic or other importance to anyone. Americans just have not yet become aware of this fact because of the likes of ilk such as Bill Kristol.

    • EUR1069
      March 17, 2013, 9:27 pm

      @Stephen: a little aside re Gromykos’s UN speech: Ben Gurion & Golda Meir (a Kiev native & the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR) successfully bamboozled Stalin into supporting the creation of Israel with promises of the first Socialist state in the Middle East. The Zionists truly left no angle un-played in achieving their goal. By the time the Old Man realized he was had it was too late, & it only resulted in a brief backlash against the Soviet Jews in top positions in 1951-52. In a famously telling episode of the newly awakened & shameless Zionist spirit, Golda Meir was greeted in the Moscow airport by Molotov’s wife Polina Zhemchuzhina (Perelman), then the Grand Dame of the Politburo with the phrase in Yiddish: “I am a daughter of Jewish people”, making Golda weep with joy. Polina was promptly kicked out of the CPSU, arrested & jailed for years for the reasons of hanging with the Zionist crowd. If only we exercised such vigilance over the wholesale grand treason & wanton surrender to the Zionist interests in this country. Related Q: is there going to be a donkey on Obama’s itinerary?

      • traintosiberia
        March 18, 2013, 12:17 am

        Thank you for this piece of I formation. If you had ,could you provide the source/ link please?

      • EUR1069
        March 18, 2013, 10:35 am

        @traintosiberia: It is a matter of historical record with info galore, mostly in Russian – you can google it from any angle.

  6. jimmy
    March 17, 2013, 1:39 pm

    Zionist Claim to Israel Unfounded

    March 15, 2013

    (Alfred Lillienthal 1915-2008, left, was a pioneer anti-Zionist Jew whose many books demolished the Jewish case for the usurpation of Palestine.) – See more at: link to henrymakow.com

    “The home to which so many other Ashkenazim Zionists have yearned to return has most likely never been theirs…many Christians may have much more Hebrew-‘Israelite’ blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors.”

  7. German Lefty
    March 17, 2013, 1:46 pm

    the anti-Zionist narrative, which views the Jews as outsiders who came to Palestine after being chased out of Europe only to make the Palestinians pay for the crimes of the Nazis…

    Yes!

    ‘Well, if there was a Holocaust, let the Germans pay for it, not the Arabs.’ That’s a reasonable response if you don’t believe that Jews are from here.

    Well, present generations of Germans do pay for it. Israel makes Germans AND Palestinians pay for the Holocaust. While Germans (only) pay money, Palestinians pay with their land and lives. It’s unfair. Neither of us has done anything.

    “Jewish indigenousness in the region,” the idea that history — the uninterrupted Jewish presence in the lands of ancient Israel for more than 3,000 years — justifies the modern Jewish claim to a state there.

    Bullshit. Jews are a religious group. Just because some people of Jewish faith have lived in the region for more than 3,000 years doesn’t give any foreign Jews the right to move there or to found a Jewish supremacist state there. Otherwise, Muslims and Christians would also have the right to their own state in that area.

    Obama is embracing this idea in order to say goodbye to these religious fanatics. [...] It helps to give someone something when you want to break up with them.

    This looks like the typical US optimism.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:31 pm

      @ German Lefty

      “Israel makes Germans AND Palestinians pay for the Holocaust.”
      I don’t think the state of Israel has the power by itself to make anyone pay for the Holocaust–except the natives of the land, the Palestinians, who, of course, are totally innocent.

      The injustice problem is mainly rooted in the bribery system of the lone superpower’s US political campaign finance system and who controls the journalists employed by the major media in US, and to some extent, the EU media, most especially, the German media, as well as the media in Canada, Australia, and the UK. Big International Banking is also involved.

      • German Lefty
        March 18, 2013, 6:49 am

        I don’t think the state of Israel has the power by itself to make anyone pay for the Holocaust–except the natives of the land

        Yes. The problem is that the German politicians are cowards.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 18, 2013, 1:42 pm

        If only the Germans and Palestinians are paying for the Holocaust™ then, why are the American taxpaying suckers forking over a min. 3 BILLION bucks to them every year? After Germany, the US is the country that contributes the most money to that illegitimate project. I can understand why Germany does it but why are the Americans forced to pay for something that has nothing to do with them? Also, when speaking of “payment” let’s not forget the Russians who sacrificed 75 MILLION of their citizens to avenge 6 million jews. The law of mathematics at work.

      • EUR1069
        March 18, 2013, 7:59 pm

        @MK: A minor correction: Russians lost 27 million people in only four years, 1941-45. 12 million were civilian casualties, with the rest military. Thus the Russian civilian deaths ALONE were TWICE of the Holocaust Jews. It’s only that it never occurred to the Russians to turn their dead into a industry of cultural braggadocio, political extortion, emotional blackmail & PR manipulation.

    • yonah fredman
      March 17, 2013, 4:44 pm

      German Lefty- My understanding (correct me if i’m wrong) is that german reparations paid to individual Jews and to corporate Jewish groups were for the moneys taken from those by the Third Reich “legally”, as in those who lived in Germany and the two other annexed countries Czechoslovakia and Austria. Germany has never paid for the millions it killed in the Soviet Union or Poland or Hungary or am I wrong?

      • German Lefty
        March 18, 2013, 6:46 am

        @ yonah fredman:

        Germany paid reparations to the Soviet Union and Poland.
        When I said that “Israel makes Germans pay”, I mainly thought of things like the supply of free submarines and other weapons. I wasn’t talking about the actual reparations to the actual Jewish victims, but about Israel’s emotional blackmail of Germany to get further stuff for free.

      • German Lefty
        March 18, 2013, 7:31 am

        @ yonah fredman:
        I just discovered these websites, which show how Germany uses its federal budget.

        link to bund.offenerhaushalt.de
        When you click on “Zahlenwerte anzeigen”, you can see Germany’s restitution payments (Wiedergutmachungen) from 2005 to 2011:
        2005: EUR 616,026,000
        2006: EUR 592,783,000
        2007: EUR 550,282,000
        2008: EUR 584,329,000
        2009: EUR 639,785,000
        2010: EUR 599,984,000
        2011: EUR 561,994,000

        The numbers for 2012 and 2013 are here:
        link to bundeshaushalt-info.de
        link to bundeshaushalt-info.de
        2012: EUR 639,988,000
        2013: EUR 696,150,000

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 1:15 pm

        Germany has never paid for the millions it killed in the Soviet Union or Poland or Hungary or am I wrong?

        Are you talking about just Jews or everyone killed in WWII? Don’t forget that Russian Jews fought in the Red Army against Germany. Officers and troops alike.
        link to articles.latimes.com
        [scroll past the ad to read all of the op-ed.]

    • john h
      March 17, 2013, 5:02 pm

      “While Germans (only) pay money, Palestinians pay with their land and lives. It’s unfair. Neither of us has done anything”.

      One of “us” has indeed done something. It is [or was] Germany, and what it did was the Holocaust, the Shoah.

      • German Lefty
        March 18, 2013, 5:56 am

        One of “us” has indeed done something. It is [or was] Germany, and what it did was the Holocaust, the Shoah.

        No. Neither I nor the Federal Republic of Germany existed at that time.

    • Ellen
      March 17, 2013, 6:35 pm

      German Lefty, It may seem”typical US optimism” to a German understanding of US culture, but I think it rather the well-meaning optimism of Phil Weiss.

      Optimistic or not, he does have a point: it helps to give someone something when you want to break up with them.

      But -as US Americans say….maybe the hope is that after we break up we can still be freinds.

      Me thinks that Obama like Clinton, two men who grew up without their fathers, is looking for love and recognition everywhere he can get it.

      Obama won’t break up with anyone.

  8. Stone
    March 17, 2013, 1:55 pm

    O, he must feel a connection. That’s ridiculous. Canada is a much more important ally to the US. Has anybody ever said that about a president with reference to our neighbors to the North? It’s just ridiculous the amount of influence(power or weight) that Israel has in American foreign policy. It should be based on size and population no more important than say a Sweden or Belgium is. Maybe its location means something else but hell, we need to leave all of the people alone in the ME. That and our foreign policy(plus the troops in Saudi Arabia. Let’s have Muslim troops in the Vatican then) is why we were attacked on 9/11. And we are not “allowed” to criticize the country because they have members of a group who were once persecuted. Like nobody else was persecuted ever in history at all. Do we not criticize the Sudanese or the Bosnians or anybody else? Can’t think of any ethnic group or religious group that never has been persecuted at one point. Anyway, I end this with a quote:

    Answer to Question by United Press of America, by Gandhi – From The Bombay Chronicle, June 2, 1947

    What do you feel is the most acceptable solution to the Palestine problem?

    The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:40 pm

      @ Stone
      Gee, didn’t Gandhi ever realize that the lesson the Jews learned from the Holocaust was never to turn the other cheek? They never accepted Jesus as wise in the first place. They adopted Hitler’s concept of the superior macho man engaged in survival, which is what they, like Hitler, reduced the reality of the world to–cheap Darwinism.

  9. Citizen
    March 17, 2013, 1:56 pm

    The question is not, why do many Jews believe Israel is on land bequeathed to them by God many centuries ago, but why did the Gentile powers support the formation of the contemporary state of Israel, and why do they do this blindly right down to today?

    Obviously, if Israel and what it does is supported, as it is, by the Western nations and their lackey regimes across the globe, it is necessary to look into the roots of Gentile support by the Western nations. Very quickly the question arises, “Why should the natives of so many generations have to pay for the Shoah, which was done by Germany? The second question, so aware of 1948, as a time not only when Israel was recognized by the nations (excepting the entire Arab world represented at the UN, and also not by the native Palestinians who were not directly represented at the UN at all), but a time when the US and USSR were competing for control of the whole world, is,
    since the USSR no longer exists as a counter-superpower, what real interest should the lone superpower USA have in supporting Israel to the nines, no matter what it does?

    The answer is that the US is stupid to do so. It’s not in America’s interest to keep giving a blank check to Israel, and to allow Israel its pocket veto at the UNSC.

    And, btw, the dead sea scrolls were discovered on Palestinian land, not Israeli land, and the only reason Obama gets to view them in Israel is because Israel confiscated them in its aggressive war land conquest in 1967. By staying silent on this subject, by paying tribute to it, Obama OK’s what was deemed criminal at Nuremberg and its Geneva spawn.

  10. giladg
    March 17, 2013, 1:57 pm

    The story of Passover talks about 10 Plagues. The Egyptians can rest assured that Obama, as far as they are concerned, is not going to be the 11th.
    Barak Obama is way too entrenched in his positions on the conflict, directly influenced by his own connection to Islam by his biological father, his adopted father, plus the time he spent in a madras.
    He is not going to change, so those fearing a reversal of his mistakes in Cairo, can rest assured that you can continue to spew your hate towards the Jewish people as Obama is not going to upset your apple cart.

    By the way, all Israel is asking Obama to do, as the most powerful man in the world, is to use that power responsibly. What he did in Cairo was wholesale disregard for the authority placed in his lap. Obama should talk about what Jerusalem means to the Jewish people. He once understood this, before he was elected, when he called for Jerusalem to remain united and part of the same historic connection to the Jewish people he will be mentioning. He needs to go into details, but won’t. The devil is in the details, and the details do not support the Palestinian cause.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2013, 2:17 pm

      too entrenched in his positions on the conflict, directly influenced by his own connection to Islam by his biological father, his adopted father, plus the time he spent in a madras.

      gag me with a spoon.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 17, 2013, 2:57 pm

      His biological father – what other father could there be? And you apparently subscribe to the idea that beliefs are biologically transferred from one person to another? Seriously? Sounds like a eugenic argument to me. And his time spent in a madras? Lol, do tell us about that. You just make stuff up on a random basis, but I suppose that is a biological inheritance of zionism.

      As for the details you mention, depends on what you mean, but the commonly understood ones (apart from the manufactured superstitious ones) do most definitely support the Palestinian cause. They are based on internationally agreed norms for equal human rights, regardless of race, religion or class.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:44 pm

      @ giladg
      What Obama did in Cairo was to momentarily take seriously the authority placed in his lap. Jerusalem is directly connected to all three Abrahamic religions. Bethelem is directly connected to Christianity. The devil is in the details, and the details do not support Israel’s policies or conduct.

    • john h
      March 17, 2013, 5:10 pm

      And you are not going to change. If Obama used his power responsibly it would be a whole new ball game for Israel that could see the end of it being ruled by Zionism.

    • kalithea
      March 17, 2013, 5:37 pm

      Obama is much more of A LOSER than you paint him out to be now that you Zionists are making him fellate the donkey. YOU CAN HAVE HIM! Anyone who kisses the Zionist ring is a weakling and a coward.

    • EUR1069
      March 17, 2013, 9:35 pm

      @giladg: that would be “madrassa”. “madras” is a lightweight cotton or silk fabric. Other than that, just pinch me! Damn!

      • JennieS
        March 18, 2013, 12:18 am

        “madras” is a lightweight cotton or silk fabric.
        or a curry.

        Whatever EUR1069 thanks for the laugh.

    • RoHa
      March 17, 2013, 11:25 pm

      “so those fearing a reversal of his mistakes in Cairo, can rest assured”

      Wrong. There should not be a comma after the subject clause.

    • sardelapasti
      March 18, 2013, 12:32 am

      Giglagd – Israel is asking Obama… to use that power responsibly”.
      You don’t what that, you’d be out of Palestine in a NY minute. Luckily for you, that buffoon can’t act responsibly anyway.

    • talknic
      March 18, 2013, 6:41 am

      @ giladg March 17, 2013 at 1:57 pm

      “Barak Obama is way too entrenched in his positions on the conflict, directly influenced by his own connection to Islam by his biological father, his adopted father, plus the time he spent in a madras”

      Irrelevant to the legal status of Israeli sovereignty as recognized by the USA and on which he is obliged as is the US senate link to trumanlibrary.org . Plus the US’s legal obligation to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States link to pages.citebite.com . Which is why the US cannot legally veto Chapt VI resolutions reminding Israel of predetermined Law and the UN Charter. At best all they can do abstain from voting on Chapt VI resolutions and veto Chapt VII resolutions which are not predetermined..

      “you can continue to spew your hate towards the Jewish people”

      Quote this alleged hatred of Jewish people…. thx.

      “By the way, all Israel is asking Obama to do, as the most powerful man in the world, is to use that power responsibly”

      Uh? Forget the UN Charter, forget the Law, forget the relevant conventions and allow Israel to keep territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled and force the Palestinians to agree. That’s about as far away from ‘responsibly’ as one can possibly get.

      “Obama should talk about what Jerusalem means to the Jewish people”

      What it ‘means to the Jewish people’ is irrelevant to its legal status as non-Israeli, Arab territory. (UNSC res 476 link to domino.un.org )

      ” when he called for Jerusalem to remain united”

      He has never said united as Israeli territory. As it now stands, Jerusalem is divided, has been ever since the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 link to mfa.gov.il

      Under UNGA res 181 ( the US recognized Israel per UNGA res 181) it would have been undivided. As corpus separatum was never legally instituted, Jerusalem was never legally separated from Palestine. Which is why UNSC res 476 says “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

      “The devil is in the details, and the details do not support the Palestinian cause”

      In your ziocaine addled dreams… The details support the Palestinians legal rights to
      A) An independent state
      B) RoR
      C) Compensation for 64 years of Israeli belligerence which Israel, having illegally dispossessed and displaced Palestinians, illegally acquired Palestinian territory by war, illegally settled Palestinian territory, illegally annexed Palestinian territory, illegally instituted Israeli civil law in “territories occupied”simply cannot afford to pay. I.e., Israel cannot afford to adhere to the law because its illegal facts on the ground are far too extensive.

      Israel MUST negotiate a settlement and rely on Palestinians to forgo their legal rights so that Israel can keep its ill gotten gains or, eventually face the law, which would send Israel bankrupt for decades and probably see it dissolve into civil war as it tried to repatriate hundreds of thousands of unwilling and disillusioned back into Israel. Alas such a civil war would be outside the territory of Israel, in which case the surrounding Regional Powers would have the right to intervene as they did in 1948 by invading what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

    • eljay
      March 18, 2013, 8:37 am

      >> By the way, all Israel is asking Obama to do, as the most powerful man in the world, is to use that power responsibly.

      If Israel were asking Obama to use his power responsibly, it would be asking him, among other things:
      – to immediately and completely halt the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State’s” 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
      – to get Israel to withdraw to within its / Partition borders;
      – to hold Zio-supremacists accountable for past terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and for current and ON-GOING (war) crimes;
      – to get Israel to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace;
      – to help Israel reform itself from an oppressive and supremacist “Jewish State” into a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all Israelis, equally.

      But Israel is not asking Obama to use his power responsibly to accomplish these things. Israel is asking Obama to use his power irresponsibly to advocate for, defend, justify and excuse the existence of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      It’s distasteful – but not surprising – that Israel would do this. And it’s distasteful – and, unfortunately, also not surprising – that Obama will comply.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 18, 2013, 2:02 pm

      By the way, all Israel is asking Obama to do, as the most powerful man in the world, is to use that power responsibly.

      Careful what you ask for. If he used his power responsibly, he would withdraw all support for ISreal (moral, financial, weapons and otherwise) and leave Israel alone to fight its own battles. American taxpayers want the same thing as y’all: for the president of the UN (whoever he may be) to use his powers responsibly. Supporting ISreal’s terrorism, land theft, Apartheid and genocide do not qualify as using his powers responsibly.

  11. Stone
    March 17, 2013, 1:58 pm

    O, good grief. Took too long to write that and people came up with some of my points anyway. O, well. Yes, exactly. Christians have just as much right to the Holy Land as well. We’ve been there for 2,000 years as well. O, right. The next line. Oops.

  12. American
    March 17, 2013, 2:34 pm

    “But Obama is clearly acquainted with the ideas that energized Jewish nationalism.”

    Oh,oh,oh my aching head!……”Jewish nationalism”, the achilles heel and source of problems for Jews with the nations so often……..and that zio hole is being dug deeper and deeper.
    It’s all so stupid and self destructive I can’t stand to think about it anymore.

  13. pabelmont
    March 17, 2013, 3:07 pm

    OK, ancient connection, OK already. IN THAT CASE, what about the Palestinians’ ancient connection to the same land? Will we hear about that too? And what about the Palestinians’ need for a state within their own ancient homeland DUE TO the Nakba?

    Do we know anybody who can persuasively make THIS case?

    • Stone
      March 17, 2013, 4:30 pm

      In a more recent example, they also have deeds to their lands. Actual written documents.

  14. Blake
    March 17, 2013, 3:20 pm

    Prof Shlomo Sand – HOLY LAND OR HOMELAND:
    In the Hebrew Bible the geographic area roughly corresponding to the land of Palestine (between the River Jordan & the Mediterranean Sea) is mostly called the “land of Canaan.” The area “never served as a homeland for the ‘children of Israel,’ & for this reason, among others, they never refer to it as ‘the Land of Israel.’” Most Israelis, Prof Sand argues, are not aware that the term is not found in Hebrew Bible “in its inclusive meaning” of a wide geographic area.

    Shlomo Sand explains it was a “holy land” rather than a “homeland”. Most Jews did not seek to live there. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st Ce Jewish philosopher, lived in Egypt — right next to Palestine. He could have moved to Jerusalem, since both regions were under Roman rule — but instead, like most people, he chose to live & die in his original homeland . Eretz Israel was traditionally considered by mainstream Judaism to be so holy the devout were positively forbidden to move there. Even pilgrimage was a rare, & later phenomenon. Between the years 134 and 1099, “we know of no attempts by the followers of rabbinical Judaism to make pilgrimages to the holy city” of Jerusalem.

    • Stone
      March 17, 2013, 4:48 pm

      “Between the years 134 and 1099, “we know of no attempts by the followers of rabbinical Judaism to make pilgrimages to the holy city” of Jerusalem.”

      A little levity for everybody. In 1099, there was a siege of Jerusalem. Did the Jews decide that was a good time to start making pilgrimages? Or right after? If so, I hope they fired their travel agents when they returned! I know. I know. The kingdom of Jerusalem was founded after it. Not that it was a particularly good time for visiting.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:54 pm

      Ah yes, the “land of Canaan,” the land God told the Jews, according to their scribes, they could take at the total expense of all its inhabitants. Well, these days, Israel does not need God, just the American campaign finance system and a lock on its mainstream media on anything touching on Israel. The other Western nations follow in lockstep. All would have you believe that Israel itself is a font of Western Civilization, of the mark of The Enlightenment–when Zionists view that mark as Jewish suicide.

      • Stone
        March 18, 2013, 11:27 am

        If we’d fix the campaign finance laws then things would be better in the US. More power to the people then. Unfortunately, money doesn’t talk it swears in this country.

  15. DICKERSON3870
    March 17, 2013, 3:22 pm

    RE: “Alex Kane noted the importance to Israel supporters of symbolic actions the president is scheduled to take later this week to affirm an ancient Jewish connection to the land. These gestures, which include laying a wreath on the tomb of Theodor Herzl, are aimed at correcting Obama’s earlier political mistake in his 2009 Cairo speech of justifying Israel’s existence only with reference to the Holocaust . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: The Likudnik Revisionist Zionists and the settlers desperately want everyone to acknowledge “the Jews’ 4,000-year connection” to their homeland* [Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the occupied West Bank)] so that it will legitimate Israel’s continued colonization and ultimate annexation of the West Bank.
    Consequently, the Likudniks were very upset by Obama’s having referred to the Holocaust, etc. as justifying Israel’s existence in his June 2009 Cairo speech.
    While the Holocaust, etc. might well justify the existence of Israel, the Eretz Israel crowd fears that the international community might not see the Holocaust as necessarily justifying Israel’s absorption of “Judea and Samaria” [a/k/a the "disputed" West Bank (f/k/a the occupied West Bank)] . To remedy this, the Likudniks want the “Biblical narrative” used to justify Israel’s existence because they see it as being more specific to “Judea and Samaria”.
    By referring to Israel as the ‘historic homeland’ of ‘the Jewish people’ in his 2010 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama has – for the settlers in the West Bank and their supporters – acknowledged that “Judea and Samaria” is/are a legitimate part of Israel. That was probably the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Of course, the two-state solution had long been in an advanced state of Rigor mortis, so a proper Christian burial was probably in order.
    Obama is a Christian, right? I can never keep that straight.

    • DICKERSON3870
      March 17, 2013, 3:30 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To ‘Prove’ Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist”, by Shmarya Rosenberg, FailedMessiah.com, 12/29/12

      “My research refutes 40 years of genetic studies, all of which have assumed that the Jews constitute a group that is genetically isolated from other nations,” Dr. Eran Elhaik says.
      That’s because Jews were never genetically isolated
      , making those other studies fatally flawed and very often contradictory.
      Now Elhaik, in a study that is being called more profound than all of those that came before his combined, has exposed that fatal flaw and is the first to propose a viable way resolve those contradictions, Ha’aretz reports.
      The answer to the origin of the Jewish people Elhaik found is startling – for most of us, our Jewish origins really do begin with the Khazars, the Medieval central Asian people whose ruling elite (and perhaps its merchant class, as well) converted to Judaism.
      The 32-year-old does his work at the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. His study was published earlier this month as, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”, in the prestigious journal, ‘Genome Biology and Evolution’, which is published by Oxford University Press. This study is based on a complete analysis of the comprehensive genetic data published in preceding studies.
      But in the absence of genetic data for the long-lost Khazars themselves, Elhaik uses a procedure often used by researchers in his field – he used data from populations that are genetically similar to the Khazars, including Georgians, Armenians and Caucasians, populations that Elhaik says have all come from the same genetic soup.
      When doing so Elhaik discovered what he calls the Khazar component of European Jewry.
      According to his study’s findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European Jews, this makes up the largest part of their genome, 38%. For East European Jews it does the same, at 30%.
      Elhaik found that European Jews genome is mostly Western European.
      “[They are] primarily of Western European origin, which is rooted in the Roman Empire, and Middle Eastern origin, whose source is probably Mesopotamia
      [a name for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, corresponding to modern-day Iraq, the northeastern section of Syria and to a lesser extent southeastern Turkey and smaller parts of southwestern Iran - J.L.D.], although it is possible that part of that component can be attributed to Israeli Jews,” he told Ha’aretz by phone from Maryland.
      That possibility is important because, if it turns out to be true, it could connect European Jews to Israel. However, even if it is true, that connection is only a tiny part of the overall genome, a percentage so small that it would reportedly not be statistically significant enough to show that the origin of the Jews is the Kingdom of Judah in the biblical Land of Israel. . .

      SOURCE – link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 4:58 pm

      Obama views all religions as political markers he must dance around to get whatever he thinks his legacy should be. He’s mostly for any form of reparations for American blacks.

  16. Taxi
    March 17, 2013, 3:29 pm

    I really wish jewish scholars would make their minds up about how long this “connection” to the holy land has been going on for. First it was “over two thousand years”, then it became “three thousand years”, and now it’s apparently three thousand AND two hundred. Not forgetting here that ashkanazim are european converts with no historic, biological or cultural connection to the holy land wotsoever – our very own Oleg being one such fine example.

    This bogus ‘historic belonging’ that Ashkanazim keep freakishly insisting on is the epitome of their mass delusion that no honest and responsible persons should EVER indulge them in – politicians and deviants excluded from this lofty category.

    I’ll remind all yea contemporary zionist tribalists out there that homo sapiens have been around for some 200,000 – this makes even your dubiously rounded 2,300 years somewhat paltry in context with the bigger picture. Think here how African natives, for instance, have lived on their blessed land for some 200,000 years. Uhuh.

    A brief history of early humans, for them inquiring minds:
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2013, 3:41 pm

      epitome of their mass delusion

      reminds me of link to mondoweiss.net

      • john h
        March 17, 2013, 5:32 pm

        thanks annie, I had missed that one.

      • RoHa
        March 17, 2013, 11:40 pm

        One of Annie’s greatest posts. Will she ever get back to Atlantis?

    • Shegetz
      March 17, 2013, 4:22 pm

      It’s ambiguous on purpose. The Israelis almost never clearly commit to anything, their history, what their borders are, security policies, nuclear arms, their non-existent constitution, the labour laws….or whatnot.

      Everything has to be a moving target you see – as to keep the upper hand. They have to be able to alter their story in whatever manner suits them for the occasion.

      Keep everything you can ambiguous and selectively enforced. Welcome to Israel!

    • Ecru
      March 17, 2013, 4:45 pm

      The amusing thing for me is that Jews cannot claim ANY link beyond 2500 years. Quite simply because Judaism DIDN’T EVEN EXIST! Prior to this the population of the area were not monotheists, the archaeology is pretty clear. You just can’t be Jewish unless you believe in one and only one god. Even then this was Temple Judaism, VERY different to modern Rabbinical Judaism. I seriously doubt any “Jew” from the 1st Century would even recognise a modern Jew as being of the same faith.

      As for the Israelites well there’s an Egyptian inscription (3200 B.P) but there’s a problem (actually there’s a few but I’ll stick to one for now). How do we know the inscription refers to the same people that later became identified as Israelites? There’s plenty of examples of groups spuriously claiming descent from other peoples, the Aztecs used the Toltecs, the Brits at one time used the Trojans, the claim can be an attempt at gaining political legitimacy in the present through a bogus past. So the name “Israel” might be there but it doesn’t necessarily mean what Zionists want it to mean.

      No, Zionists are basically playing a “we’re older, therefore more valid than you” game that ignores all changes in culture, language, religion and anything else in the quest for legitimacy and superiority through “tribal” age. And it’s complete rubbish.

    • piotr
      March 17, 2013, 5:42 pm

      The history of Jewish people is complex, so different dates can be chosen. BUT! but you should not try to use the Bible to argue for a date before the beginning of the world.

    • RoHa
      March 17, 2013, 11:38 pm

      “I really wish jewish scholars would make their minds up about how long this “connection” to the holy land has been going on for.”

      As long as is necessary, if not longer.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 18, 2013, 2:09 pm

      I really wish jewish scholars would make their minds up about how long this “connection” to the holy land has been going on for. First it was “over two thousand years”, then it became “three thousand years”, and now it’s apparently three thousand AND two hundred.

      Since, according to the Bible and its fundamental followers, the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you know that will be the cap. Unless, of course, the Hasbara Ministry can photoshop produce pix of a rabbi riding a dinosaur. :)

  17. DICKERSON3870
    March 17, 2013, 3:48 pm

    ● RE: “[T]he Likudniks want the “Biblical narrative” used to justify Israel’s existence because they see it as being more specific to ‘Judea and Samaria’ . . .” – me (from above)

    ● AND HERE’S ANOTHER BENEFIT OF RELYING UPON THE “BIBICIAL NARRATIVE” AS OPPOSED TO THE HOLOCAUST: “Bachmann: America ‘cursed’ by God ‘if we reject Israel’”, By Andy Birkey, The Minnesota Independent, 02/08/10

    [EXCERPTS] At a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Los Angeles last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann offered a candid view of her positions on Israel: Support for Israel is handed down by God and if the United States pulls back its support, America will cease to exist.
    The Republican Jewish Coalition is the same organization that recently hired former Sen. Norm Coleman. . .
    . . . Here’s a transcript of some of her remarks at the RJC event:
    I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.
    Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially, which was the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and I have a wonderful quote from John Adams that if you will indulge me [while I find it] . . . [from his February 16, 1809 letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp]:
    “I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilizA

    . . . So that is a very long way to answer your question, but I believe that an explicit statement from us about our support for Israel as tied to American security, we would do well to do that.

    SOURCE – link to minnesotaindependent.com

    P.P.P.S.
    ● SEE this video about “Taliban Dan” Webster (R – FL) who replaced Alan Grayson in the Congress. It includes a clip from a televangelist program where Webster talks about how much he loves to give foreign/military aid to Israel (à la Michele Bachmann*). Webster is a Southern Baptist.
    VIDEO (04:04) – God’s Hand; Rep. on Israel Policy
    Cenk Uygur breaks down comments regarding foreign aid and Israel by Republican Congressman Daniel Webster.
    LINK – link to youtube.com

    ● ALSO SEE: “Congressman Daniel Webster ‘Must Fund Israel’ Or Lose God’s Hand!
    Theologian Paul Begley of Indiana explains that Florida Congressman Daniel Webster “Must support Israel” or lose the “Hand Of God” upon America! This is the one Congressman who is not afraid to stand for God’s Chosen People!!
    LINK – link to youtube.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      March 17, 2013, 4:28 pm

      P.P.P.P.S. FROM BRAINYQUOTE.COM:

      “From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step.” – Denis Diderot

      “We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.” – Denis Diderot

      “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” – Denis Diderot

      “Disturbances in society are never more fearful than when those who are stirring up the trouble can use the pretext of religion to mask their true designs.” – Denis Diderot

      SOURCE – link to brainyquote.com

      • Bumblebye
        March 17, 2013, 10:40 pm

        I read this quote the other day, purportedly Churchill:
        “A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

      • DICKERSON3870
        March 19, 2013, 2:41 am

        FOR SOME JUICY CHURCHILL QUOTES, SEE:
        “The Churchill you didn’t know”, The Guardian, 11/27/02
        Thousands voted him the greatest Briton – but did they know about his views on Gandhi, gassing and Jews…
        LINK – link to guardian.co.uk

      • lysias
        March 19, 2013, 3:19 pm

        Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhusree Mukerjee is one horrifying book.

  18. Ecru
    March 17, 2013, 4:14 pm

    Well let’s see. Being as a chunk of my family is from Yorkshire does that mean that since I have a historic tie to Paris via the Parisii I can therefore move in, kick out somebody who’s family have only been living there since forever, torture anyone who objects and, oooh I dunno, massacre some children just for fun?

    As for the Dead Sea Scrolls and modern Israel well they might as it happens just have a little bit of relevance. After all when the Scrolls were being written the Sicarii -the worlds first ethno-religious terrorists who positively wallowed in xenophobia- were running around killing as many “impure” as they could lay their little blood soaked hands on. The original model me thinks for the IDF.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 18, 2013, 2:12 pm

      My family and I are getting ready to make demands of the Spanish government since our paternal grandparents migrated from Spain and our maternal granparents hailed from the Canary Islands. According to the law of the family, we’re all entitled to go back to both countries and take back a portion of that land. BTW, we can all prove this since it’s in our birth certificates. Our god forgot to deed them to us in his holy book. :)

      • Ecru
        March 18, 2013, 5:22 pm

        Uh oh. I live in Spain. Hope you’re not after my house ’cause I should warn you, during the Spanish Civil War somebody put gun-slits in the walls.

  19. Stone
    March 17, 2013, 4:26 pm

    By the way, here is a link to some great quotes by Gandhi on the whole issue of Palestine:

    link to gandhiserve.org

  20. Blownaway
    March 17, 2013, 5:06 pm

    Obama is like a battered wife willing to do anything to stop the beating…only it never stops. Now in Israel Netanyahu will raise the stakes asking for Obama to bomb Syrian commit to bombing Iran and to call all Arabs Islamic radicals. The myth of the strength of a second term president being independent is now proven to be just that a myth

  21. kalithea
    March 17, 2013, 5:29 pm

    Whut??? Ancient connection? These Zionist scoundrels, liars and THIEVES came from places like MOLDOVA, and other parts of Eastern Europe, and then New Jersey and Little Israel parts of Florida, New York and California.

    Why doesn’t Obama tell the Indians and Spaniards to colonize and reclaim parts of the U.S., after all their connection is at least a THOUSAND YEARS more recent that the Zionist connection to Israel???

  22. piotr
    March 17, 2013, 5:39 pm

    “apparent lack of an emotional connection to Israel”

    I noticed in on many occasions, and it makes a lot of sense: with no real interests in common, there is a dire need of an emotional connection.

  23. mikeo
    March 17, 2013, 6:00 pm

    “In Cairo, Halevi said, Obama failed to acknowledge “Jewish indigenousness in the region,” the idea that history — the uninterrupted Jewish presence in the lands of ancient Israel for more than 3,000 years — justifies the modern Jewish claim to a state there.”

    Fraudulent self-justifying ahistorical Bullshit as modern archaeology demonstrates…

    “The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.

    This is not to say that individual elements of the story are not older. But Jewish monotheism, the sole and exclusive worship of an ancient Semitic god known as Yahweh, did not fully coalesce until the period between the Assyrian conquest of the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586. ”

    link to naderlibrary.com

    • Annie Robbins
      March 17, 2013, 9:49 pm

      oh heavens mikeo, this could manifest into a huge pr problem if news got out.

      • mikeo
        March 18, 2013, 11:10 am

        Oh there’s plenty more where that came from Annie:

        “Whereas previously archaeologists had concentrated on the lowland cities where the great battles mentioned in the Bible were said to have taken place, they now shifted their attention to the highlands located in the present West Bank. The results were little short of revolutionary. Rather than revealing that Canaan was entered from the outside, analysis of ancient settlement patterns indicated that a distinctive Israelite culture arose locally around 1200 B.C. as nomadic shepherds and goatherds ceased their wanderings and began settling down in the nearby uplands. Instead of an alien culture, the Israelites were indigenous. Indeed, they were highly similar to other cultures that were emerging in the region around the same time–except for one thing: whereas archaeologists found pig bones in other sites, they found none among the Israelites. A prohibition on eating pork may have been one of the earliest ways in which the Israelites distinguished themselves from their neighbors.

        Thus there was no migration from Mesopotamia, no sojourn in Egypt, and no exodus. There was no conquest upon the Israelites’ return and, for that matter, no peaceful infiltration such as the one advanced by Yohanan Aharoni. Rather than conquerors, the Hebrews were a native people who had never left in the first place. So why invent for themselves an identity as exiles and invaders? One reason may have been that people in the ancient world did not establish rights to a particular piece of territory by farming or by raising families on it but by seizing it through force of arms. Indigenous rights are an ideological invention of the twentieth century A.D. and are still not fully established in the twenty-first, as the plight of today’s Palestinians would indicate. The only way that the Israelites could establish a moral right to the land they inhabited was by claiming to have conquered it sometime in the distant past. Given the brutal power politics of the day, a nation either enslaved others or was enslaved itself, and the Israelites were determined not to fall into the latter category.”

        Mileikowsky is talking out of his arse…

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 1:26 pm

        mikeo and annie,

        In addition to that great Harper’s Magazine article you cited, mikeo, there’s this as well, which was printed in Ha’aretz Magazine on Friday, October 29, 1999. Of course, the crowd went nutz.
        “Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” by Ze’ev Herzog
        link to individual.utoronto.ca

        Herzog “is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005, and serves as archaeological advisor to the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority in the preservation and development of National Parks at Arad and Beer Sheba.”

      • mikeo
        March 19, 2013, 4:29 am

        Exactly, the Bible is not a history book. When fundamentalist Christians take the Bible literally in this way (earth is 6000 years old etc) they are laughed at by educated people for being unsophisticated. When they seek to deny evolution on this basis they are ridiculed.

        What is so different in this case?

        It’s commonly acknowledged in academia and by educated people that most of what is contained in the Bible is simply not historically accurate. This especially applies to the “History of the Jews” as they are the original myth-makers…

        So why do so many educated Jewish people feign ignorance of this basic and obvious fact.

      • EUR1069
        March 19, 2013, 9:57 am

        “Indeed, they were highly similar to other cultures that were emerging in the region around the same time–except for one thing: whereas archaeologists found pig bones in other sites, they found none among the Israelites. A prohibition on eating pork may have been one of the earliest ways in which the Israelites distinguished themselves from their neighbors.”

        The late Chris Hitchens in his book “God is Not Great” floats an interesting theory in an attempt to explain the unique prohibition on pork among the ancient Jewish tribes, nonexistent anywhere else in the Middle East – which voids the explanation that pork goes bad faster in hot climate, etc. The apparent tradition of sacrificing their first born male child for God from Abraham/Isaac to Jesus who was framed by his daddy – in tandem with the the fact that pork tastes like human flesh allows for the possibility of cannibalism in ancient times (now, don’t get outraged, cuz it existed in other cultures too) , which, when it was abandoned, resulted in giving up pork as well. Something for archeologists & cultural anthropologists to look into, IF they are willing.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 12:19 pm

        “Exactly, the Bible is not a history book. When fundamentalist Christians take the Bible literally in this way (earth is 6000 years old etc) they are laughed at by educated people for being unsophisticated. When they seek to deny evolution on this basis they are ridiculed.

        “What is so different in this case?”

        Oh, I’ll go a step farther: When non-fundamentalist religious believers observe this information and the unavoidable conclusion of a manufactured (and wholly human) basis for these religious stories, why do they maintain their belief in the religious of their ancestors rather than realizing that it is no more “real” than any of the thousands of religious stories and myths created by societies all over the world? How truly educated are these people who can look at this evidence that, to any honest observer would lead to the conclusion that there is no truth to the religious, but yet still profess a faith in that religion or that religion’s god concept?

      • mikeo
        March 19, 2013, 7:44 pm

        “How truly educated are these people who can look at this evidence that, to any honest observer would lead to the conclusion that there is no truth to the religious, but yet still profess a faith in that religion or that religion’s god concept?”

        Well I have some sympathy for people who feel a need to engage with some sort of “spirituality”. A feeling that there is some mysterious level of understanding or engagement that we can have as humans that is beyond or outside our rational understanding. Religious or spiritual beliefs would surely not be so common in almost every culture if this were not something that humans have a natural inclination towards.

        If only people could just accept that their particular “brand” is merely a vessel to finding a universal truth and be satisfied that the only reason that they choose to use that vessel is likely an accident of birth.

        Or just choose the one that suits them best without needing to insist that all the other vessels are “wrong” in some way.

        The prejudice, intolerance and lack of critical thinking that are actively encouraged in many religious cultures are what have put me off being involved in any organised religion since I was a small child (also I was not raised religious which is usually the primary factor – again an accident of birth).

        However I have found much inspiration and insight from Taoist texts and often re-read them for reasons I cannot completely explain – other that they satisfy some part of my consciousness that gravitates toward the “spiritual” side of understanding the world…

        How any intelligent person could see the religious texts of any major religion as serious and accurate records of history rather than a heterogenous collection of stories intended to direct one on a spiritual path through parable and example is beyond me…

  24. seafoid
    March 17, 2013, 6:33 pm

    I think the insistence on Obama recognising this link shows how his Cairo speech really freaked them out.
    And that he said what he did in Cairo means it has more traction than the hasbara does.

    The other thing I was thinking was the very old Jewish injunction about travelling to Palestine and causing trouble .The old guys knew how complicated it would be to translate the religious talk into a political mission. Praying “next year in Jerusalem” never granted property rights.

    And how right they were.

  25. Blownaway
    March 17, 2013, 6:41 pm

    Gideon Levy said it best in todays Haaretz “When Obama said he admires Israel’s “core values,” which values was he talking about? The dehumanization of the Palestinians? The attitude toward African migrants? The arrogance, racism and nationalism? Is this what he admires? Don’t separate buses for Palestinians remind him of something? Doesn’t two communities living on the same land, one with full rights and the other with no rights, “ring a bell,” as they say in America?

  26. Sumud
    March 17, 2013, 7:00 pm

    The obscenity of Obama acknowledging some jewish connection to Israel/Palestine from X thousand years ago, and simultaneously denying Palestinian’s refugees legal connection to mandate Palestine from 1948 and later, cannot be overstated.

    Craven Obama.

    • MHughes976
      March 17, 2013, 7:36 pm

      The historic connection of the Palestinians to the land, a connection that is utterly obvious without any resort to religion or to ancient history, is being waved away by presidential magic: change you can believe in, indeed.
      Of course it is worth remembering that the one and only name clearly applied to the land between the waters stretching from Phoenicia to Egypt, as a name in actual use, in any pre-Roman source including the Bible, comes from Herodotus (IV:39) and is ‘Palestine’. The Romans permitted the official return of the ancient name, previously ignored in order (I suppose) to please crucially important allied monarchs who were of Jewish religion but doubtless used all the time by many inhabitants, after the Jewish Wars.

  27. dimadok
    March 17, 2013, 8:41 pm

    “In the life of nations, as in the life of individuals, there are vital moments which rarely recur, and which, according as they are utilized or not utilized, decisively affect their future. We are now passing through such a moment. The consciousness of the people is awake. The great ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have not passed us by without leaving a trace. We feel not only as Jews; we feel as men. As men, we, too, wish to live and be a nation as the others. And if we seriously desire that, we must first of all extricate ourselves from the old yoke, and rise manfully to our full height. We must first of all desire to help ourselves and then the help of others is sure to follow.”
    Leon Pinsker ” Auto emancipation “, 1882
    This is the core Zionism for you here. Rinse and repeat.
    link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

    • john h
      March 18, 2013, 1:08 am

      “We must first of all desire to help ourselves and then the help of others is sure to follow.”

      “help ourselves” do what? What help of others should follow, or has followed? When? How did that come about?

    • kalithea
      March 18, 2013, 10:57 am

      “we must first of all extricate ourselves from the old yoke”…(poor-me!…blah). “We must first of all desire to help ourselves”…(me-me, us-we…blah!).

      Yeah, you sure extricated yourselves from the ol’ yoke and put it on the backs of MILLIONS of Palestinian men, women and children!

      You Zionists desired to help yourselves, alright! YOU HELPED YOURSELVES TO PALESTINIAN LAND, RESOURCES, WATER AND THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!

      Rinse…us? HA! It’s you Zionists that need repeated rinsing to try to purge yourselves of what is really THE CORE OF ZIONISM…SIN!

      SELFISH B…ST…RDS!

      • MHughes976
        March 18, 2013, 1:43 pm

        I haven’t looked at the context of the quote from Pinsker and he may indeed have been an inglouriously selfush basterd. But it’s rather hazy rhetoric, maybe appealing to people who weren’t at all sure where the Jewish future really lay, and doesn’t in itself say anything, not one word, about Palestine. Judenstaat, which I have read, claims that the foundation of the new Jewish state will redound to the benefit of all humanity. Ho hum. Freud strikes a related note in Moses and Monotheism, though emphasising the paradox that the more good Jewish citizens do to their fellows the more the become the target of anti-Semites. This leads him into strange thoughts.

      • dimadok
        March 18, 2013, 6:03 pm

        @kalithea . And you may choke on that indeed.

  28. dbroncos
    March 17, 2013, 9:26 pm

    No doubt the WH and the DNC see a pot of gold on the other side of Obama’s visit.

  29. talknic
    March 17, 2013, 10:51 pm

    Let ‘em thrill and stew in their disillusionment. The historical right became history and irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s sovereign extent the moment Israel was declared and recognized as it asked to be recognized… “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

    • baby
      March 18, 2013, 11:21 am

      The UNGA’s resolution of November 29, 1947 didn’t recognize Israel. The GA only recommended the partition plan, because it has no competence for make decisions, according the UN Chart. Israel was a unilateral creation by Zionists, based on mass murders and expulsion of the native people, the Palestinians, and the theft of their land. It’s important to know the real history. Without it we can’t understand the causes of what is going on today and can’t ask for justice — the only way to peace.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 8:03 am

        @ baby

        “The UNGA’s resolution of November 29, 1947 didn’t recognize Israel. The GA only recommended the partition plan”

        Correct on both counts… However you seem to miss the point being made.

        Whether one agrees that it should or not, Israel exists. It is a UN Member State. It claims it has no borders, yet it was recognized by the boundaries it asked to be recognized by.

        Israel illegally claims non-Israeli territory, it has illegally annexed non-Israeli territory and illegally settled non-Israeli territory.

        They are the simple unbiased, neutral facts of the matter.

        Israel LIES. Constantly. Supporters of a Greater Israel repeat those lies, constantly. We can expose Israel’s lies and false claims quite simply, by showing Jewish Agency and Israeli government statements.

        Israel has been acting outside of Israel for 64 years, has no legal right to ANY non-Israeli territory, owes the Palestinians BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars in compensation for its ghastly transgressions.

  30. W.Jones
    March 17, 2013, 11:46 pm

    “The Holocaust doesn’t explain why we’re here… The Holocaust explains why we fight as fiercely as we do to stay here” (“said Yossi Klein Halevii, a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem”)
    Well, Birobidjan was ruled out as too unfertile, the Crimea was ruled out as too “political” for the USSR, Uganda was too far away and primitive. But the Holy Land on the other hand had not long ago been “released” from any strong ruling power- the Ottomans had been kicked out not long before and the British were in the twilight of their empire. Hence, unlike in the medieval period, after WWII the Holy Land was a practical place to choose.

    That is not to say there were not cultural attachments, but the strategic situation in that point in time may have unwittingly served as a factor.

    “‘Well, if there was a Holocaust, let the Germans pay for it, not the Arabs.
    That’s a reasonable response if you don’t believe that Jews are from here” (Halevi said).

    It seems reasonable even if Jews are from there! If Jews are from the Holy Land, why should the Arabs “pay for” the Holocaust?!

    • lysias
      March 18, 2013, 5:45 pm

      Don’t forget the importance of British Realpolitik, which saw settling a client people so close to the Suez Canal as vital to the supply lines with British India.

      • W.Jones
        March 19, 2013, 1:52 am

        I was not aware of that. Interesting.

  31. Abdul-Rahman
    March 18, 2013, 3:18 am

    “Yet the absence in that speech of an explicit affirmation of the deep and abiding 3,200 year old connection of the Jewish people with its historic homeland” of course these retarded Zionist propagandist liars will keep spouting their same debunked MYTHS no matter how many times they are completely refuted!

    link to google.com

    Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews

    (AFP) – Jan 16, 2013

    PARIS — Jews of European origin are a mix of ancestries, with many hailing from tribes in the Caucasus who converted to Judaism and created an empire that lasted half a millennium, according to a gene study.

    The investigation, its author says, should settle a debate that has been roiling for more than two centuries.

    Jews of European descent, often called Ashkenazis, account for some 90 percent of the more than 13 million Jews in the world today.

    According to the so-called Rhineland Hypothesis, Ashkenazis descended from Jews who progressively fled Palestine after the Moslem conquest of 638 AD.

    They settled in southern Europe and then, in the late Middle Ages, about 50,000 of them moved from the Rhineland in Germany into eastern Europe, according to the hypothesis.

    But detractors say this idea is implausible.

    Barring a miracle –which some supporters of the Rhineland Hypothesis have in fact suggested — the scenario would have been demographically impossible.

    It would mean that the population of Eastern European Jews leapt from 50,000 in the 15th century to around eight million at the start of the 20th century.

    That birth rate would have been 10 times greater than that of the local non-Jewish population. And it would have occurred despite economic hardship, disease, wars and pogroms that ravaged Jewish communities.

    Seeking new light in the argument, a study published in the British journal Genome Biology and Evolution, compares the genomes of 1,287 unrelated individuals who hail from eight Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations.

    Geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, trawled through this small mountain of data in search of single changes in the DNA code that are linked to a group’s geographical origins.

    Such telltales have been used in past research to delve into the origins of the Basque people and the pygmy people of central Africa.

    Among European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East.

    The results, said Elhaik, give sound backing for the rival theory — the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

    Under this concept, eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, a hotchpotch of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries AD and, influenced by Jews from Palestine, converted to Judaism in the 8th century.

    The Judeo-Khazars built a flourishing empire, drawing in Jews from Mesopotamia and imperial Byzantium.

    They became so successful that they sent offshoots into Hungary and Romania, planting the seeds of a great diaspora.

    But Khazaria collapsed in the 13th century when it was attacked by the Mongols and became weakened by outbreaks of the Black Death.

    The Judeo-Khazars fled westwards, settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and in Hungary, where their skills in finance, economics and politics were in demand, and eventually spread to central and western Europe, according to the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

    “We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaised Khazars, Greco-Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews and Judeans,” says Elhaik.

    “Their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga, with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.”

    Many things are unknown about the Khazars, whose tribal confederation gathered Slavs, Scythians, Hunnic-Bulgars, Iranians, Alans and Turks.

    But, argues Elhaik, the tale sketched in the genes is backed by archaeological findings, by Jewish literature that describes the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism, and by language, too.

    “Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, began as a Slavic language” before being reclassified as High German, he notes.

    Another pointer is that European Jews and their ancestral groups in the Caucasus and Middle East share a relatively high risk of diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

    The investigation should help fine-tune a fast-expanding branch of genomics, which looks at single-change DNA mutations that are linked with inherited disease, adds Elhaik.

    Copyright © 2013 AFP. All rights reserved.

    link to gbe.oxfordjournals.org

    Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses”

    © The Author(s) 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.

    By the way the attempted Zionist propagandist “responses” to Dr. Eran Elhaik’s definitive genetic study have been so weak and pathetic, they are almost beyond laughable!

  32. homingpigeon
    March 18, 2013, 7:05 am

    I have spent the last hour or so watching some videos about the Jewish ancestry of many Palestinians, which add an interesting twist to all arguments about Jewish and Palestinian right of return. A Rabbi Dov Stein and scholar Elon Jardin, who as best I can tell at this point are not part of any “pro-Palestinian” project, are on a schtick making the case that the Israelis should be tolerant and accepting of Palestinians because so many of them have Jewish roots. The last major conversions of Jewish Palestinians to Islam took place as recently as three centuries ago and many maintained Jewish symbols and customs around their homes up to modern times. Even in the rubble of some destroyed Palestinian villages are doorway archstones with Magen Davids. Many Palestinian clans are not shy of admitting their Jewish ancestry. Others are trying to hide it. Imagine being a Palestinian and on your ancient family home you have a Magen David on the arch placed there by a Jewish ancestor. Do you show it to an Israeli and hope that he will respect the common ancestry or do you destroy it for fear that a settler from Brooklyn will claim the building?

    I’m not sure if the goal of the Israelis involved in this project is to just be tolerant of Palestinians or if they are trying to suborn the Jewish ancestry Muslims into returning to Judaism or otherwise serving the Israeli state. Anyone have insight on these folks?

  33. red-jos
    March 18, 2013, 8:44 am

    Presumably Obama will be given two books of instruction for his forthcoming visit to Israel – books by an Israeli professor.

    One of the book is called “The Invention of the Jewish People” and
    the other book is called “The Invention of the Land of Israel” – From Holy Land to Homeland.

    The books are by Shlomo Sand and make for some very interesting reading.

    Mannie De Saxe

  34. baby
    March 18, 2013, 11:13 am

    Jews from Palestine had as connection to the land as the other groups who lived there — many groups. The case is that Obama will talk about a historical distortion, because the khazarian Jews who came from Europe never had a link to the land, as recent archeological, historical and genetical researches have proved. But you know, politics is made with lies, oppression and injustices. Anyway, we, those who search the true, will confront the Zionist’s lies and myths now and forever, doesn’t matter who is their al-lies.

  35. kalithea
    March 18, 2013, 11:49 am

    Zionists feel ENTITLED to Palestinian Land because throughout the ages, they and ONLY they suffered persecution and are therefore OWED. They want us to forget that other races and religious denominations were enslaved, persecuted and/or practically annihilated. And they want to make us think their so-called ancestors never massacred other tribes, either! Cause they’re the “saints” of the planet, don’t you know? They expect us to experience a historical memory lapse with regards to the suffering of countless others because they need to remain at the top of the victim list and milk their own tragedy for all its worth.

    The truth is that man’s cruelty to man has not been exclusive and we all know it. Caesar and Alexander the Great slaughtered and occupied many lands and enslaved people of all persuasions, same with the Ottomans, Christians were tortured, fed to the lions and hung on crosses, Muslims were slaughtered en masse in the Crusades, blacks have been enslaved again and again since the Roman Empire, Armenians were driven off their land and to their deaths and the indigenous of North and South American were exploited, slaughtered and practically annihilated, just to name some, BUT, we must forget all other victims and focus strictly on Zionists and their kin. Only one group can justify occupying and oppressing millions of people, because they’re “entitled” and they’re owed.

    Now excuse me while I try to defy all logic and forget we’re a society supposed to have evolved in our humanity, governed by the rule of law and at the very least our conscience. On second thought, it’ll take a self-induced lobotomy to appease these Zionists…forget it, they can kiss my youknowwhat!

  36. Ellen
    March 18, 2013, 12:38 pm

    For those interested C-Span is now broadcasting:

    “Experts Examine Pres. Obama’s Middle East Trip

    A panel of experts break down President Obama’s upcoming visit — the first foreign travel of his second term — to Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank during a policy forum at The Washington Institute.”

    link to c-span.org

    Hosted by Frm. Ambassador Ross and Jeffrey as they present their policy paper on the ME.

    Sigh…….

  37. MK_Ultra
    March 18, 2013, 1:05 pm

    Reporting on a White House conference call the other day laying out Obama’s purposes in Israel, Alex Kane noted the importance to Israel supporters of symbolic actions the president is scheduled to take later this week to affirm an ancient Jewish connection to the land. These gestures, which include laying a wreath on the tomb of Theodor Herzl, are aimed at correcting Obama’s earlier political mistake in his 2009 Cairo speech of justifying Israel’s existence only with reference to the Holocaust (seized on by religious neoconservative David Frum at the time.)

    This is beyond despicable and disgusting! Not only is Obama bowing to his Zionist masters but he’s actually recognizing and ‘honoring’ racism! I suppose it wouldn’t be too extreme to ask him to lay wreaths on the tombs of slave masters/plantation owners down in the South. After all, what’s the difference between one and the other? They’re all guilty of the same crimes and buried in stolen land.

  38. kalithea
    March 18, 2013, 2:19 pm

    There is no ancient connection between Zionists and Palestine. The connection is now minimal, hypothetical and diluted and can never justify the crimes Zionists committed there.

    What there is however that has been conclusively proven is ANCIENT AND BACKWARD ZIONIST THINKING which is what Obama will submit to right after kissing the Zionist ring and bowing to the usual ritual at the tomb of Zionism.

  39. Kathleen
    March 18, 2013, 8:27 pm

    what other group of people through history have claimed ownership to a piece of land based on referencing pieces of text written how ever many years ago. Absurd.
    Go with the internationally recognized borders of Israel or close the door to a two state solution and eventually lose control of Israel’s Jewish identity.

    • James Canning
      March 24, 2013, 1:43 pm

      Bravo, Kathleen. Time for Israel to accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan. There need be no hurry in working out how many illegal settlers leave Palestine.

  40. RJL
    March 19, 2013, 12:12 pm

    To homingpigeon (pigeons are the real indigenous species of Palestine, by the way). Yes, there were plenty of forced or occasional voluntary conversions of Jews to Islam in the Holy Land, and yes, plenty of Jewish ancestry among Palestinians, south Syrians, and going back further, arabs of Saudi Arabia, when Mohammed killed/expelled/forcibly converted Jews in Arabia. What this does say, are you sitting down, is that there were always Jews who lived in “Palestine” , and there would have been far more by 1947 if these forcible conversions, and plenty of pogroms and forced exiles, wouldn’t have occurred. Draw your own conclusions, be they different than mine.

    • James Canning
      March 26, 2013, 2:40 pm

      RJL – – Most of the Jews in Palestine converted to Christianity.

      That said, many Christians in Egypt and the Levant actually welcomed the Arab conquest.

      Idiotic religious infighting among Christians within Byzantine Empire brought about this situation.

  41. James Canning
    March 24, 2013, 1:41 pm

    Tom Friedman in his New York Times column today reminded the Israelis they do in fact need to get out of the West Bank.

Leave a Reply