When radical Zionists are unhappy with the madly pro-Zionist Bush administration, it’s time to take notice:
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has condemned the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice’s keynote speech last week to the American Task Force on Palestine as the most pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel speech in memory by a major US Administration official (State Department, October 11). Secretary Rice condemned Israel’s “daily humiliation of occupation” of Palestinian Arabs; stated that there “could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state … for a people … who have been humiliated too long”; compared the PLO/Palestinian Arab movement to the American Revolution and implied the comparison of Palestinian Arab leaders to America’s founding fathers; praised America’s support of the Palestinian Authority (PA) legislative elections in January 2005 that Hamas won, saying that now Hamas can be held accountable; called PA president Mahmoud Abbas a “moderate”; and praised the Palestinians as being committed to a better future, i.e., without violence and terrorism, while saying nothing about a major cause of the problem being the PA regime’s promotion of hatred and violence against Jews in their media, textbooks and speeches.
All these points made by Secretary Rice in her keynote address to the American Task Force on Palestine are false.
Perhaps the ZOA has done some polling within the Arab world and discovered that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims also see the Bush administration as too pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The delusion is extraordinary.
A healthy sign that extremist Zionism is scared of its dwindling future.
Extraordinary indeed, but oh so predictable. Here in Canada, a politician got into trouble for daring to describe the bombing by Israel of the apartment building in Qana as a war crime.
Never mind that it WAS a war crime.
Yeah I would be encouraged by this if it weren’t obvious that Rice has been sidelined almost from the get-go within this administration.
Still, perhaps they are onto something. During the Lebanese attacks Rice very pointedly did not complain about the Israeli destruction or even hint that they should desist.
This statement surely represents a bit of a turnaround which must be very worrying to ZOA. Unless of course it’s a new twist to the good cop-bad cop routine.
If it’s true, let’s hope she hasn’t been sidelined.
May I speak about the need for a Jewish homeland based on personal experience. My mother was an Australian christian, my father was an Austrian jew. My father perished in Auschwitz and the rest of my father’s side died in death camps – over fifty members. The following will explain why.
I believe that it is imperative that Jews have a country of their own with a place on the world stage of politics. Refugee Jews from Germany and Austria, such as my father, fleeing Hitler, obtained visas to enter Australia. My father’s visa was overturned overnight when Britain entered the war. Even when cancelling my father’s visas, the then Australian Minister for the Interior, Stanley Watson, still classified him as a Jewish refugee. My parents were not informed that his visa had been withdrawn. Like many others in the same situation, he was gassed in Auschwitz waiting for his expected entry permit.
During the Stalin era and later, when Russian Jews were being persecuted and killed, they too had no status to enter this country or any other non-Communist countries. Fortunately, the Jewish State of Israel was open to them, and thousands survived who wouldn’t have otherwise.
No matter how benign a government may appear, in times of war, expediency, or other agendas, no Jew can rely upon another country to take them in. National identity will always supersede Jewish identity. It is imperative that Jews have a homeland, Israel. Like every country, it is imperative that Jews be permitted to protect Israel; by diplomacy if possible, by other means if it fails. Diplomacy can only be effective if the other party has strong leadership, is trustworthy and is a willing participant.
I have heard Jews say that if it means a death of another person, Jewish or Palestinian, or other, that perhaps the idea of a Jewish homeland should not loom so large.
I’d be interested in other’s comments taking on board what I have stated previously.
As for Bush, I don’t like his policies at all. As for Israel, I don’t know if he really supports an Israeli homeland, but he certainly supports, and has supporters from certain fundamentalist christian groups, for example those believing in creationism. They are less concerned with Israelis, than the fulfillment of the second coming. Bush has departments funding fundamental christian groups. Those in jail who promise to take lessons in christianity and take the christian bible literally, are given special concession and rewards. The source for this information is The Architectue for Modern Political Power by Daniel Pouzzner. The web version of this book is http://mega.nu/ampp/eden and can be download in pdf.
To contribute further to my previous comment: During the puritan period in England, Jews who had previously been an exiled peoples were invited back. Particularly significant is the fact they they were encouraged to go the the holy land to fulfill the puritan millenium hopes of the second coming of christ. The puritans took this idea with them to America.
The current religious right in America were were extremely angered and upset when Ariel Sharon expelled 8,500 Jewish settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza, handing over Gaza to the Palestinians in Septermber 2005. They saw their aspirations and hopes in the second coming being thwarted. Evidence of this is readily accessed on their websites.