Zionist Conspiracy

1. Who Stole the Holy Land?
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, December 09, 2004
So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the
Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was
re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1900 years since the last time that
the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the
anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has
rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1900 years ago.
And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim
to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last
exercised sovereignty over that land 1000 years ago.
You all with me? 1900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old
claims trump them and are indisputable.

Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the
same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. After all, the last
time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine"
was ... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine.
Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of
historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of
"Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important
military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back
then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine"
was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in
1071, when Palestine came under the rule of the Suljuk Turks. That was the
last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by
a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and -
briefly - French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once
belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact
that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or
British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had
a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population
majority who are Jews. So if population majorities are what determine
legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other
country.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim
by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a
1900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even
though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The
anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more
recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands
become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most
legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel,
because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the
lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some
other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish
minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the
sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does
the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places
disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be
absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian
Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the
late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people
moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate
sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion
that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians
must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands
that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original
owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans
of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the
English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful
original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral
Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will
be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and
Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the
Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the
Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands
and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they
came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New
Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do
not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will
return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone
speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of
Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all
their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia
and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans
will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the
Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from
Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by
the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful
original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and
Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arabs
imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and
Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs
may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as
their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of
course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully
occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which
would of course be the Jews!

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map
in full!

. 2. OPINION
. APRIL 6, 2009, 10:38 P.M. ET
Anti-Semitism and the Economic Crisis
Many people still blame Jews for capitalism's faults.
.
By IRA STOLL
Walking down the street in my solidly upper-middle-class New York City
neighborhood the other day was a neatly dressed man angrily cursing into
his cell phone about "Jew Wall Street bankers."
I was headed in the opposite direction and didn't stop to interview him
about his particular grievances, but the brief encounter crystallized for
me a foreboding that the financial crisis may trigger a new outbreak of
anti-Semitism.
It is a fear that is being articulated ever more widely. President Bill
Clinton's secretary of labor, Robert Reich, frets on his blog, "History
shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed
economically." He warns that Jews, along with gays and blacks, could
become victims of populist rage.
In the New York Jewish Week newspaper, a column by Rabbi Ronald Price of
the Union for Traditional Judaism begins, "In the 1930s, as Germany's
economy collapsed, the finger was pointed at the Jews and the Nazis
ascended to power. The famous Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jew was falsely
accused of treason in France, followed on the heels of economic turmoil."
At this juncture, the trepidation may yet seem like paranoia, or special
pleading akin to the old joke about the newspaper headline, "World Ends in
Nuclear Attack: Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit." Everyone is feeling the
brunt of the recession; why worry about the Jews in particular? After all,
Jews today have two refuges: Israel and America, a land where Jews have
attained remarkable power and prosperity and have a constitutionally
protected right to exercise their religion freely. In that case, why worry
about potential danger to the Jews at all?
One answer is that the historical precedents are exceedingly grim. The
causes of the First Crusade, in which thousands of Jews were murdered, are
still being debated, but some historians link it to famine and a poor
harvest in 1095. As for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the
foremost historian of its causes, Benzion Netanyahu (the father of
Israel's new prime minister), writes of the desire of the persecutors "to
get rid of their debts by getting rid of their creditors." More generally,
he writes, "it is an iron-clad rule in the history of group relations: the
majority's toleration of every minority lessens with the worsening of the
majority's condition."
Lest this seem overly crude economic determinism, consider that the Jews
have been victims not only of unrest prompted by economic distress but of
attempts to remedy such economic distress with socialism. Take it from
Friedrich Hayek, the late Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist. In "The
Road to Serfdom," Hayek wrote, "In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to
be regarded as the representative of Capitalism." Thus, the response in
those countries, National Socialism, was an attack on both capitalism and
the Jews.
There are ample indicators of current anti-Semitic attitudes. A poll
conducted recently in Europe by the Anti-Defamation League found 74% of
Spaniards believe Jews "have too much power in international financial
markets," while 67% of Hungarians believe Jews "have too much power in the
business world." Here in America, the Web site of National Journal is
hosting an "expert blog" by former CIA official Michael Scheuer, now a
professor at Georgetown, complaining of a "fifth column of pro-Israel U.S.
citizens" who are "unquestionably enemies of America's republican
experiment." And over at Yahoo! Finance, the message board discussing
Goldman Sachs is rife with comments about "Jew pigs" and the "Zionist
Federal Reserve."
So will the Jews come under attack? The existence of the Jewish state
guarantees refuge for Jews around the world, but it carries with it its
own risks. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has said that if the Jews
"all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them
world-wide." It's a comment all the more chilling as Nasrallah's Iranian
sponsors are on the brink of making a nuclear bomb.
As for the idea that Jewish professional, political, and economic success
in America is a guarantee of security, that, too, has its risks. As Yuri
Sleskine recounted in his book "The Jewish Century," in 1900 Vienna more
than half of the lawyers, doctors and professional journalists were
Jewish, as were 70% of the members of the stock exchange. In Germany,
after World War I but before the Nazis came to power, Jews served as
finance minister and as foreign minister. Such achievements have a way of
being fleeting.
It may yet be that the Jews escape the current economic crisis having only
lost fortunes. But if not, there will have been no lack of warning about
the threat. When Jews gather Wednesday night for the Passover Seder, we
will recite the words from the Hagadah, the book that relays the Israelite
exodus from slavery in Egypt: "In every generation they rise up against us
to destroy us." This year, they will resonate all the more ominously.
Mr. Stoll is the author of "Samuel Adams: A Life" (Free Press, 2008).

3. Army reservists petition Attorney General to Prosecute "Haaretz" for
treason and defamation:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562926517&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4. Pro-Palestinian means anti-Semitic, says Moslem:
http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38775

5. J Street Treason: http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38777

6. The Nazification of Oliphant:
http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38858

7. The Face of Palestinian 'Resistance'
Jonathan Tobin -

COMMENTARY

While the world was harrumphing yesterday because Israel.s new foreign
minister affirmed the obvious futility of the Annapolis peace conference,
an axe-wielding Palestinian terrorist slaughtered a 13-year-old Jewish boy
and wounded another.
This disgusting crime took place at the town of Bat Ayin, a Jewish
settlement a few miles southwest of Jerusalem. This means that in much of
the world, the attack will be considered an understandable reaction on the
part of a Palestinian humiliated by the sight of Jews living in that part
of the country. That.s the way all such murders have been treated by the
international press. Jews who live over the .green line. are considered
provocateurs at best, and deserving of retaliatory Arab violence at worst.
But though I don.t doubt the murdered child, whose name was Shlomo Nativ,
will be simply called a .settler. in most accounts, it isn.t likely that
we will hear much about the history of the area where he lived.
You see, Bat Ayin is part of the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements. Far from
being built after the 1967 war and thus, wrongly considered a violation of
international law, Gush Etzion was settled by Jews prior to 1948. In 1948,
the Gush Etzion bloc was attacked by Arab gangs and after a long siege,
overwhelmed by the attackers who were aided by Jordan.s Arab Legion. Most
of the Jewish inhabitants were massacred. After this territory was retaken
by Israel in June 1967, some of the survivors of the 1948 attack returned
to the area and began the work of restoring Jewish life to this part of
historic Biblical Judea.
Just to confirm how normal and legitimate their town is the people of Bat
Ayin have chosen not to build a fence around their homes because they
believe it would be a sign of insecurity.
Objections to Gush Etzion cannot be about expropriation or .illegal.
settlements. The problem that Gush Etzion presents to the Arab and Islamic
world is that the people who live there are Jews.
In recent years we have heard much about the suffering of Arabs living in
the West Bank who have to put up with the inconvenience of Israeli Army
roadblocks and a security fence, both of which are the direct result of a
campaign of terrorism aimed at Israelis. What we don.t hear much about is
the constant harassment and attacks visited upon Jews who live in the West
Bank. A lot of people don.t think the idea of maintaining Jewish
communities over the .green line. is wise. But what the .resistance. to
the Jewish presence in the territories amounts to is not a protest against
specific measures or even a dispute about land. As the attack on Bat Ayin
confirms yet again, the hatred and violence directed against the settlers
is a measure of the Palestinian antipathy for Jews, pure and simple.