Monday, January 16, 2017

The Bigotry against Israel in the UN - Salim Mansur

by Salim Mansur

Europeans hate the Jews. Consequently, they hate the Jewish state." — Robin Shepherd, A State Beyond The Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel.

  • "[U]nlike America, Europe is inherently anti-Semitic. This anti-Semitism is spread more or less evenly across the political spectrum and, therefore, it translates into widespread hostility to Israel. Europeans hate the Jews. Consequently, they hate the Jewish state." — Robin Shepherd, A State Beyond The Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel.
  • No "Palestinian" leader has publicly disavowed jihad against Jews. Instead, every aspect of engagement by "Palestinians" with Jews and Israelis is considered an obligation for advancing this jihad until its final expected objective of pushing the Jews out of "Palestine" has been reached.
  • The doublespeak of the Palestinian leadership made no difference within the UN. Since the June 1967 war, the UN began to tilt away from being fair and balanced toward Israel, and extended support to Arabs of the "occupied" West Bank and Gaza as an indigenous "Palestinian" people supposedly wronged by Jews.
  • "The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; an issue where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one." — Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the UN (1981-85).
  • All of this occurred with the complicity of member states of the once-Christian West in the UN against one single and much maligned Jewish state, Israel, surrounded by hostile Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East.
The passage of the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 just before Christmas 2016, with the United States abstaining, was an IED-wrapped Chanukkah gift that lame-duck President Barack Hussein Obama delivered to Israel. It was another signal to Palestinians that they may continue their "rejectionism" of Israel, and stage another round of jihadi terrorism providing the UN the excuse to deliver pre-packaged condemnations of any Israeli reaction to the maiming and murder of Jews in the so-called "occupied" territories.

The U.S. abstention was an appalling betrayal of a people wrongly maligned by a sitting American president who for the past eight years went about assuring American Jewry, especially liberal Jews loyal to his party, that he was the most pro-Israel occupant of the White House. Instead, Obama's decision, as a parting shot before he left office, not to veto Res. 2334 lifted the veil over the unspoken animus that he not only harbors within himself but also one that still stirs many within Western nations against Israel despite their solemn public denunciations of anti-Semitism.

This is evident in the language of Res. 2334. It exclusively condemns Israel stating: "settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has [sic] no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law". It also effectively revokes Security Council Res. 242 of 22 November 1967.

There was no pretense in Res. 2334 to be fair, and hold Palestinian Authority (PA) and with Hamas equally responsible for inciting terrorist violence against civilians within Israel, thus poisoning any diplomatic effort required for a negotiated settlement between the parties. The adoption of Res. 2334 was a "gang up" by France, Eurabia, the US and the 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) against Israel. It was reminiscent of the long, shameful history of Jews as a minority people, abused and tormented by the majority among whom they resided.

For the past half century, Res. 242 was the keystone in the UN framework for peace in the Middle East. It laid out the process envisaged in the "land-for-peace" formula between parties in conflict following the June 1967 war. And on the basis of this formula Israel reached peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan in the aftermath of the October 1973 war.

But Res. 2334, instead, categorically states, the UN "will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations." In other words, the demand is on Israel to return to the 1949 armistice lines an outcome pre-determined by Res. 2334.

If Israel cannot now trade "land-for peace", since land held after June 1967 war is deemed "illegal," then there is no further reason for any negotiated settlement.

Israel cannot simply accept a status quo ante bellum that would be untenable for Israel's security -- Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban called then the "Auschwitz borders" -- and the PA, with backing of the UN.

Res. 2334 is then a formula for continued terrorist violence by Palestinians against Israelis. The adoption of Res. 2334 -- not unintentionally -- has driven a nail into the promise of the "two-State solution." The Security Council was warned ahead of the December 23 vote by President-elect Donald Trump that the United States under his administration will not accept this blatantly anti-Israel resolution.

It needs to be asked -- political correctness set aside -- of the other four permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, China, France, and Russia): Why, at this time -- when the situation in the Middle East has gone from bad to worse -- has the Security Council decided to weigh in against Israel, the only democracy and oasis of sanity in the region that has imploded through an excess of Arab-Muslim bigotry and fanaticism?

And, why did the Security Council, whose record in the Middle East is one of abysmal failure in providing "peace and security" to people most in need -- the beleaguered Christians, Yazidi, and Kurdish minorities of Iraq and Syria -- decide to revoke the long-standing Res. 242 on the patently false excuse of "salvaging the two-State solution", when the Palestinian leadership has continually refused to engage with Israelis in direct negotiations?

These questions require credible answers, but none can be given.

The real story in the adoption of Res. 2334 lies in the persistence of anti-Semitism within the UN.

Islamists, and Muslim states singly, or together, cannot advance any anti-Semitic policy in the UN detrimental to the security of Israel without the support, direct and indirect, of the Christian West. The Security Council vote on December 23 is the definitive proof. The ugly truth that many Israelis know, is that without Western complicity anti-Jew hatred of Arabs and Muslims post-Holocaust could not take root and flourish within the UN.
The last act of Obama's presidency, in the grim shadow of Aleppo's destruction, will be Obama's legacy -- of playing Brutus to Israel.

Obama conned a majority of liberal American Jews, throughout his two-terms, into believing he would keep Israel secure against her enemies. The liberal American Jews, as loyal supporters of and donors to the Democratic party, willingly subscribed to Obama's smooth sale pitch directed at them: that he would be, as the first black president, a steadfast friend and protector of Israel in a world insanely hostile against Jews.

The facts about Obama and his politics, however, were contrary to the image crafted for him and that duped liberal American Jews.

Obama was groomed in the anti-Vietnam War ideological stew of anti-Americanism blended with a potpourri of new left cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse; the left-wing anarchism and utopianism of Noam Chomsky; the radicalism of the community organizer Saul Alinsky; the reflexive anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism of "third world" ideologues, such as Frantz Fanon and Edward Said; the radical politics of student activists, such as Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman, of the nineteen-sixties; and the Black "identity" politics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Obama's mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright in Chicago that snugly fit with the filthy anti-Jew politics of Louis Farrakhan and his "Nation of Islam."

This ideological mixture was apparently a potent, mind-warping, brew. When fed to young minds in schools and colleges, as it was with Obama, with little experience of the real world and even less familiarity with world history, it infected many of them with the politics of grievance to turn resentful against their own society.

It took an outsider, like Dinesh D'Souza, an immigrant from India, to see through Obama's mask the angry face of a mulatto. In The Roots of Obama's Rage, D'Souza described the psychological motive behind Obama's politics as a misfit in the America of his mother (a white woman), in the Africa of his father (a black man raised in the midst of anti-colonial struggle against imperial Britain in Kenya), and in a part of Asia of his stepfather (an Indonesian caught in the currents of anti-communism in his country under military dictatorship).

Obama needed support of American Jews as part of his strategy in winning and retaining the White House in the control of Democrats. The party, however, had moved so far to the left since the era of Bill Clinton's presidency that for the rank-and-file members, support for Israel became increasingly contentious.

The leftward drift meant that domestically the Democratic party, in the name of "Progressivism," embraced "third world" anti-capitalism and, in the realm of foreign policy, the UN's "one world" agenda. It also meant adopting "identity" politics, and mobilizing a coalition of ethnic minorities among whom Muslim immigrant voters are headed in the near future to outnumber Jewish voters

The party of Truman embracing Israel had morphed into the party of Obama embracing anti-Zionism.

The results of the November 2016 election made redundant the charade surrounding Obama's posturing as a faithful friend of Jews and Israel. For eight years Obama watched and contributed to the worsening of political disorder in the Middle East with a series of policy decisions -- most notably the Iran deal lifting sanctions on vague promises from Tehran of putting a halt to its nuclear weapons program -- that not only is funding the Iranian nuclear program it was purportedly supposed to stop -- but it also greatly exacerbated Israel's security environment.

Many believe that Obama's refusal to veto a Security Council resolution was orchestrated by his own administration. But Obama's national-security adviser, Ben Rhodes, sought to dismiss this betrayal, by blaming Israel.

According to Rhodes, as reported by the New York Times, "Absent this acceleration of settlement activity, absent the type of rhetoric we've seen out of the current Israeli government, I think the United States likely would have taken a different view."

It did not matter to Obama that his explanation encourages Palestinian-Arab-Muslim view that their jihad in the long term will prevail against Israel. The Western powers delusionally believe that accommodation with Muslim states is of greater self-interest than indefinitely protecting the Jewish state against a hostile Muslim world.

The reason it did not matter is that Obama never publicly spoke out against the idea of Israel as a Western colonial outpost in the Arab heartland. It is a view he likely holds given his predisposition to embrace "third world" political grievances. Moreover, his friends, such the late Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and their academic cohorts in Western universities have peddled the view that Israel is, in the words of the late French Marxian historian, Maxime Rodinson, a "colonial-settler state."

Europeans, led by France, began to tilt toward the Arab countries before the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. A Euro-Arab Dialogue paved the way, as French leaders, beginning with De Gaulle saw in Arab North Africa, after French withdrawal from Algeria in 1962, a bridgehead for a Europe-Arab partnership, along with affordable oil and hopefully less terrorism.

France had supported Israel diplomatically and with military assistance during the period of the Algerian War (1954-62), which included the fateful alliance of France and Israel during the Suez War of 1956. But a crack opened in the Franco-Israeli relations after the June 1967 war.

Most likely in a fantasy of promoting France by currying favor with the Muslim states for more low-cost oil and optimistically less terrorism, De Gaulle turned on Israel.

Europeans increasingly came to view Israel, as the French leader depicted her. De Gaulle had used the word "occupation" in a reprimand of Israel, and the word lent support to Arab propaganda against Israel. This Euro-Arab Dialogue paved the way, as Bat Ye'or, the peerless historian of the Middle East and Islam, described, as the making of "Eurabia."

In Europe, or "Eurabia", it has become an article of "faith" that Israelis have wronged the "Palestinian" Arabs and have proceeded systematically, in the words of Charles de Gaulle, to "oppress," "repress," and "expropriate" them.[1] In supporting Arabs of Israeli "occupied" territories, Europeans can also assuage their guilt over the anti-Semitism of their past, and re-balance their sense of political morality by embracing Arabs and Muslims as people of the "third world" to atone for their past sins of colonialism.

But this European consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the nineteen-seventies cannot obscure the ugly reality beneath. Europeans have not expunged anti-Semitism from their midst. As Robin Shepherd writes,
"[U]nlike America, Europe is inherently anti-Semitic. This anti-Semitism is spread more or less evenly across the political spectrum and, therefore, it translates into widespread hostility to Israel. Europeans hate the Jews. Consequently, they hate the Jewish state."[2]
The American left finds itself ideologically at home with Europe's mainstream politics, which mostly "Left"-leaning. Obama as a man of the "Left" is similarly at home with the European views about the world. Obama did not hide this affinity with Europeans from Americans; instead he publicized it when he took his campaign for the White House to Berlin in 2008.

Americans in general admire and support Israel. For Americans, the "special relationship" with Israel is special. Consequently, even as Obama shared the European consensus on Israel and did not hide his disdain for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he kept his pretense of being a friend of Israel until nearly the end of his presidency.

At a deeper level, Obama's animus, exposed over Res. 2334, also revealed his woeful ignorance of world history. All his foreign policy catastrophe have come from that: his reset button" with Russia; his courtship of other dictatorships such as Cuba and Iran; his premature withdrawal from Iraq thereby creating a vacuum filled by ISIS; his release of hard-core terrorists from Guantanamo Bay; his indifference to the Iranian people after the fraudulent elections of 2012; his enabling Iran's nuclear program under the pretense of "preventing it; his murder by default of America's ambassador to Libya and three other heroes; and his abandonment of Syria, creating more than half a million deaths to name but a few.

Samantha Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, at a Security Council meeting, on February 24, 2016. (Images source: United Nations)

Res. 2334, in falsely declaring Israeli settlements on disputed territories illegal, has ruled out negotiations by predetermining the outcome.

Israel is now denied control over the most sacred part of Jerusalem -- the Temple Mount area and the Western Wall -- that is at the heart of Jewish history, and the longing of Jews since their eviction from the City of David by the Romans in the first century C.E.

UN machinations also fabricated a previously non-existent identity for a people -- the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs. In the process, the UN lent itself to the Arab and Muslim states, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to advance their not-so-hidden agenda of undermining Israel's security by demanding the establishment of a "Palestinian" state with boundaries existing prior to the June 1967 war.

In UN Security Council Res. 242 (1967), there is no mention of "Palestinian" people. They did not exist. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the area was mandated by the British who called it Palestine. Anyone born there -- Jew, Arab or Christian -- had Palestine stamped on his passport and was a Palestinian.

Resolution 242 called for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" without defining the refugees. Leaving "refugee" undefined meant that parties in conflict when negotiating would need to recognize that the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel led to the making of refugees among both Arabs and Jews -- Arabs dislocated or evicted due to the partition and the war that followed, as were Jews from Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa.

The non-mention of "Palestinian" people, or "Palestinian Arabs, or "Palestinians" in Res. 242 was consistent with all previous resolutions, statements, and declarations made by the UN or its predecessor, the League of Nations.
In all but name, the wish to consummate Hitler's "final solution" for Jews has animated a substantive segment of Arab and Muslim thinking since the establishment of Israel.[3] Each of the wars Israel has had to fight, beginning with the war in May 1948 against the combined Arab armies, if lost, had the potential of Jews being exterminated by Arabs in Palestine.

The Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini escaped from Europe after the Nazi defeat and made his way into Egypt. The Allied powers never indicted him as a war criminal; he eventually retired as an Arab hero to Lebanon, where he died in 1974. The leaders of the "Palestinian" movement since 1945 have been the progeny of the Mufti.

The Mufti's politics of jihad declared against Jews, beginning with the riots of 1921, has since then grown in intensity. No "Palestinian" leader has publicly disavowed jihad against Jews. Instead, every aspect of engagement by "Palestinians" with Jews and Israelis is considered an obligation for advancing this jihad until its final expected objective of pushing the Jews out of "Palestine" has been reached.

After the overwhelming defeat suffered by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the six-day war of June 1967, a practical response was needed by the Arab leaders to quell the seething anger of their people against them and re-direct that anger against Israel, while buying time to rebuild Arab strength. One response came in the Arab League Summit in Khartoum, Sudan, in August-September 1967. There the Egyptian leader, President Gamal Abdel Nasser, spelled out the "three no's" -- "no recognition, no negotiation, no peace" -- in defining the collective Arab stand against Israel.

The other response was to build support for a resistance movement of Arabs both in Gaza (under Egyptian control until June 1967 war) and in the West Bank (under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan). Israel had warned Jordan to stay neutral during the buildup of the crisis ahead of the June 1967 war. But when King Hussein imprudently joined forces with Egypt and Syria against Israel, Jordan's military defeat came with the loss of control over the West Bank. Arab governments officially designated the resistance movement launched from the "occupied" territories as the "Palestinian" struggle against Israel.

In the UN, after the June 1967 war, the great powers met with renewed energy to seek a diplomatic resolution in containing the Arab-Israeli conflict that might be spinning out of control. The result was Resolution 242, carefully crafted and unanimously adopted by the Security Council.

The resolution's preamble, emphasizing "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" was a pious wish with no basis in history or law, for if it did then much of the history of Western powers and their acquisitions of territories as result of wars would need revision. But even more to the point, Arab and Muslim states have continued to contravene the intent of the clause -- Pakistan has occupied parts of Kashmir, Turkey has occupied parts of Cyprus, Morocco has occupied the Spanish Sahara, Russia has occupied Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea, and China has occupied Tibet.

The key point in the English version of Res. 242 with reference to Israel was withdrawal of its armed forces "from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Arthur J. Goldberg, the U.S. ambassador to the UN (1965-68) involved in drafting the resolution, explained,
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal, from Israel's viewpoint, are the words all, the, and the June 5, 1967 lines. The Israeli emphasize that there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967."[4]
According to Goldberg, Israel tied its withdrawal "from territories" to the principle Res. 242 affirmed that every State in the area is entitled "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Since then, every American administration, until Obama's, has supported this formula of "land-for-peace" without prejudging the outcome of the land that would be returned by Israel in reaching a final agreement with each of its opponents.

Arab states in the years since the adoption of Res. 242 eventually came to accept it as the framework for peace in the region. The reasoning was, again Goldberg, "the Arab States came to the conclusion that the language of the Resolution was the best they could hope for from the United Nations."

Arab leaders also shrewdly sensed the tide of support for Israel as the "underdog" within the UN was shifting as new members, former colonies of the European powers, was emerging as a majority-voting bloc. These new members were more sympathetic to the cause of Arabs as the new "underdog" in the UN.

The leading Arab states in the decade and half after the June 1967 war -- Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, Tunisia -- continued to characterize their politics in terms of secular nationalism, even as support for Islamic fundamentalist parties began to grow among a new generation of radical youths. The Arab states became more diplomatically adept in pushing their interests at the UN and among the European powers. After the October 1973 war, Arab efforts to isolate Israel grew in tandem with the use of oil as a "weapon".

It is during this period that the "Palestinian" movement under the banner of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and headed by Yasser Arafat, emerged from the shadows of internal Arab politics into the notice of the UN. In 1974 the Arab states with support of non-Arab Muslim countries, nonaligned members of the "third world", and countries of the (former) Soviet bloc arranged for the UN General Assembly to invite Arafat to its opening session in New York. The following year the same group of countries adopted in support of Arab states the General Assembly resolution 3379 (1975) declaring, "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." This resolution was revoked during the 1991 General Assembly session.

The PLO was not constrained by any of the recognized norms of an established state in waging its asymmetrical terrorist warfare against Israel. At the Munich Summer Olympics in 1972, a wing of the PLO -- the "Black September" faction -- took 11 Israeli athletes hostage and killed them. There were attacks on Israeli civilians and airplane hijackings by Palestinian terror groups, as the Arab war against Israel turned unconventionally terrorist.

The 1979 revolution in Iran under Khomeini was a victory for Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East. Khomeini repudiated the idea of normalization between Muslims and Jews, between Israel and the Arab-Muslim states in the region and beyond. Khomeini invited Arafat to meet with him in Tehran, and he sharpened the language of jihad against Israel.

In October 1981 President Anwar Sadat of Egypt was killed by his own soldiers in a public military parade in Cairo. Sadat had signed a peace treaty with the Jewish state and had pushed for the normalization of Arab relations with Israel under the UN framework of Res. 242. Palestinians rejoiced over the murder of Sadat.

The Palestinian leadership spoke in a secular setting about Palestinian movement in terms of nationalist struggle, and in an Islamic setting in terms of jihad against Jews and Israel.

When Arafat was asked in South Africa in 1994 about the PLO accepting the Oslo Accords on the basis of Res. 242, he explained it as only a hudna (truce) with the enemy. He referred to the example of the treaty of Hudaibiyyah that Prophet Muhammad negotiated with his opponents in Mecca. In this treaty, Muhammad had promised a ten-year truce; but after he had strengthened his armies, he returned in only three years to obliterate the opposition.

The doublespeak of the Palestinian leadership made no difference within the UN. Since the June 1967 war, the UN began to tilt away from being fair and balanced toward Israel, and extended support to Arabs of the "occupied" West Bank and Gaza as an indigenous "Palestinian" people supposedly wronged by Jews.

After June 1967 war, Palestine came to no longer mean the territory designated for the establishment of Israel, as the Jewish homeland. It came to mean, instead, the land forcibly occupied by an alien people.

Until 1967, opposition to Jews and Israel, had been mounted in the name of Arabs, as was the jihad proclaimed by the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini on behalf of Arabs and Muslims against Jewish colonial-settlers in Palestine deemed an integral part of the Arab watan (homeland).

But in the years after 1967, Arabs of the territories "occupied" by Israel, and newly designated as "Palestinians," came to be viewed in the Muslim world -- enthusiastically backed by Europe, especially France -- as the vanguard of a jihad against Jews. As Arafat said, agreements to him were merely hudnas (truces) with the enemy until the goals of the jihad -- liberation of "al Quds" (Arabic for Jerusalem) and the annihilation of Israel, which Khomeini put forward as Islamic imperatives -- were realized.

The mention of "Palestinians" as a people with inalienable rights, and not as refugees, was made for the first time in the UN General Assembly Resolution 2535 (XXIV), Section B, of December 10, 1969. From then onwards, the notion of the "Palestinian" people with "the right to self-determination" pushed by Arab and Muslim countries became a ritual in the UN. As Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the UN (1981-85), wrote:
"The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; an issue where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one."
All of this occurred with the complicity of member states of the once Christian West, or Christendom, in the UN against one single and much maligned Jewish state, Israel, surrounded by hostile Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East.
The reputation of the UN for efficacy, justice, sense of history, is just about non-existent. Adam LeBor, a British author, in "Complicity with Evil": The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide, has provided a grim indictment of the UN's repeated failure to stop those who broadcast their genocidal intent to the world, as Hitler did.

When it comes to Israel, the United States and not the UN has protected her from the mob like behavior of the representatives of much of the world's member states at its meetings. In the Security Council, there have been a few occasions, such as when the U.S. representative voted with the majority on a resolution condemning Israel in March 1980.

Daniel P. Moynihan, who had served as the U.S. representative to the UN (1975-76), in writing about what such a vote, instead of a veto, on the part of the United States at the Security Council meant, observed:
"The Security Council resolutions are time bombs. Ticking. The case has all but been made that Israel is an outlaw state, and indeed the General Assembly has now called on the Security Council to consider imposing sanctions against it. It will take the toughest minded diplomacy to dismantle the indictment now in place—thanks to the Carter administration; thanks to those who brought the Democratic party to such confusions. The new administration will have to deal also with the whole question of the Third World. It should be clearer now that hostility toward the West, toward the United States, is abiding and, it may be, burgeoning."
As the new administration of President Donald J. Trump begins, it will take immense stamina and courage to stare down the "jackals" in the UN emboldened by Obama's betrayal of Israel. Neither the late Daniel P. Moynihan, a distinguished and widely respected diplomat and Democratic Senator from New York, nor most Americans could have imagined that nearly four decades later another Democratic administration would sink lower than that of President Jimmy Carter in undermining America's "special relationship" with Israel, the only liberal, open, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East.
Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of "Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim" and "Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism."

[1] See Jean Lacouture, De Gaulle: The Ruler 1945-1970 (London: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 443.
[2] Robin Shepherd, A State Beyond The Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2009), p. 209.
[3] Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (New York: The Modern Library, 2001), p. 58.
[4] Arthur J. Goldberg, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the Prospects for Peace in the Middle East," in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 12 (1973): pp. 187-195.

Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of "Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim" and "Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel must not be a repeat of Czechoslovakia 1938 - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

I have just returned from a long trip in the post-1967 areas to see for myself and I say: Israel cannot survive without Judea and Samaria.

Israelis march in Judea and Samaria
Israelis march in Judea and Samaria
Flash 90

As I close this column, we don’t know exactly what the Paris "peace conference” will decide to demand in its targeting of the Jews of Israel.

It seems that France has no shame in fomenting anti-Semitism once again, “la maladie francaise”. Did France forget that an innocent Jewish army captain, Alfred Dreyfus, was tried falsely for “treason”? Did France forget that Vichy’s Pierre Laval deprived the French Jews of their rights even more energetically than the Nazis pressed him to do?

But this new targeting of Israeli Jews is a European problem, not a French one.

On September 10, 1938, Hermann Goering declared that a little portion of Europe was making life unbearable to all, referring to small country of the Czechs. On September 13 in Nuremberg, Hitler decided that German-speaking inhabitants of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland region needed to be annexed. At that point, Czechoslovakia appealed to its allies, including France. But the great powers were hesitant and surrendered. Hence the Munich Conference asked Czechoslovakia to accept, in the interest of “peace”, an amputation of its territory.

There is no doubt that it was cowardice that brought European democracies to choose the path of capitulation to Nazism. There is no doubt as well that it is cowardice that now brings Europe to want to create a state, the “Palestinian State”, which would be the first “jüdenrein”, or cleansed of Jews, country since Nazi Germany.

They are trying Israel to get Israel to deport close to 100,000 Jews in Area C, or abandon them to the mercy of Arabs, through diplomatic pressure, boycott, “peace conferences”, sanctions. (All the Jews of Judea and Samaria live in Area C, while only 4% of the Palestinian Arabs do.The rest have self government in PA Areas A and B, ed.)

The European democracies, the United Nations and Obama’s America are working hard to pressure Israel to amputate its territory, Judea and Samaria, the Biblical land of the Israelites whose strategic mountains allow the Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv to sleep so well. Czechoslovakia’s only defensible borders were in the Sudetenland as Israel’s only defensible borders lie in Psagot, Alfei Menashe, Beit Aryeh, Beit El, Psagot, Ofra, Elon Moreh, Elkana, Amona and Ariel.

David Makovsky, an American analyst who joined the failed US “peace team” led by Martin Indyk, numbered the amount of Jews to be evicted so as to reach an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs: 77 communities and 59,872 Jews in the scenario closest to Bibi Netanyahu’s “pragmatic” idea: 88 communities and 94,226 Jews in a limited “1967 lines” scenario.

The question is not if the new Nazis will try to divide the land of Israel, that is a foregone conclusion. The biggest question is if the Jewish State in 2017, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, will be forced to surrender to terror in the name of “peace”.

If in 1939 the Nazis entered Prague without firing a shot and Czechoslovakia was wiped off the map, in 2017 the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Isis would like to enter Area C of Judea and Samaria without firing a shot. Then, the Sudeten mountains were the only position from which Prague was defensible, Area C is today Israel’s only defensible border.

I hope the Jews will hold all the land they liberated in 1967, the most important and impressive miracle of the modern State of Israel.

I am writing this from firsthand observation. I just returned from a long trip to the post-1967 areas and don’t be fooled: Israel cannot survive without Judea and Samaria.

Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Inauguration War - David Horowitz

by David Horowitz

The Left prepares its counter-attack on American democracy.

Reprinted from

According to Gallup, the average presidential honeymoon lasts seven months. This is a window when the losing party declares a partisan peace, allows the incoming president to pick his cabinet and launch the agenda his victory mandates. Presidential honeymoons are not only a venerable American tradition they are one of democracy’s pillars. For generations they have been ceremonial supports for the peaceful transition of power, and the peaceful resolution of partisan conflicts.

Not this election year. There will be no honeymoon. This year even before Trump arrives in the Oval Office, the opposition cry has been Resist! Block! Reject! It is not just anti-American radicals like Michael Moore, who has indeed called for “100 days of resistance” to the Trump presidency, but by the leadership of the Democratic Party which has vowed to fight Trump’s appointments, has attacked the election result as an expression of popular racism, attempted to discredit the Electoral College by falsely calling it a legacy of slavery, and even accused Trump of being a Russian agent, a pawn in the chess game of its dictator Vladimir Putin. It is a sad day for America when the world’s oldest political party, whose name proclaims it a partisan of democracy, comes out in force as a saboteur of that same system.

Nor is all this simply a fit of Democratic absent-mindedness. Instead, it is the culmination of a long developing shift in Democratic Party politics, a shift symbolized by the current favorite to become its next leader. Keith Ellison is a Muslim radical who spent his formative adult years as a vocal supporter of the anti-Americananti-Semitic racist Louis Farrakhan. Ellison reflects the power of the Bernie Sanders radicals in the Democratic Party who according to recent Gallup polls now represent its majority, even though they lost a rigged primary election which would have made him the party’s presidential nominee.

The face of this new Democratic Party was revealed during a seminal moment in the second Clinton-Trump presidential debate. It came when Trump turned to the cameras and said, “Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” He was referring to her now notorious statement that half of Trump’s supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” which was followed by her iteration of those she had in mind: “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

What made this moment pivotal was that the slurs were not an idiosyncratic tic of the Democratic standard-bearer and leader of the party’s “moderate” wing. They were the logical expression of the identity politics that had become the party’s creed. If every political issue and conflict is reduced to a conflict of races, genders and ethnic origins this inevitably leads to the demonization of the opposition as racist, sexist … deplorable. It is this mentality that has swallowed the Democratic Party and caused it to view politics not as an art of compromise but as a war against the indecent and the irredeemable. There can be no more succinct summary of what the Democrats’ rejection of the traditional presidential honeymoon is about.

Nonetheless, what was most significant in the presidential debate was Trump’s readiness to confront Hillary to her face and describe her attack for what it was: hate. It was the kind of indiscreet character description that had become a signature reflex of Trump’s campaign. Never before had one presidential candidate so bluntly confronted another. Never had any Republican dared to characterize a Democratic opponent in such damning moral terms before a national audience.

This why the attempt to reverse the election result, block Trump’s appointments and cripple his agendas will fail. Other Republicans faced with such extreme attacks on their appointments would have thrown many of them under the bus. But Trump himself has been the target of such attacks from the outset of his campaign. The reason he has been so attacked has been his readiness to confront head on what is called “political correctness” but what is in fact a party line demonizing anyone who challenges it as a racist, sexist, Islamophobic — deplorable.

This is the revolution that Trump represents. It will succeed or fail on whether the American people are ready to reject the racial, gender and ethnic divisiveness that has become the policy of the Democratic Party; whether they are ready to restore the American social contract that regards individuals on their merits, regardless of race, color or creed. In short it will succeed or fail on whether they are ready to make America great again.

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Pruitt vs. the EPA - William L. Anderson

by William L. Anderson

Indeed, scientists are in disagreement about “the degree and extent of global warming” and while the NYT and its allies condemn anyone who veers from “climate-change orthodoxy,” this issue does need to be debated

Follow the mainstream media (especially the New York Times), and one concludes that all of Donald Trump’s cabinet picks are straight out of Central Casting of villainy for the MSM narratives of Republicans. Jeff Sessions, for example, supposedly is a racist segregationist who would love to join the Ku Klux Klan -- but holds back because some Klansmen smoke pot. And Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, wants us to die horrible deaths on a polluted, overheated planet.

An NYT headline last December 7 read, “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.” In modern political speak, a “climate change denialist” is like a Holocaust denier. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with 17 Democratic state attorneys general, demands criminal prosecution of oil executives and scientists that do not acknowledge the view of climate change as outlined in the Democratic Party platform. According to the Times,
Mr. Pruitt, a Republican, has been a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, actions that fit with the president-elect’s comments during the campaign. Mr. Trump has criticized the established science of human-caused global warming as a hoax, vowed to “cancel” the Paris accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to fight climate change, and attacked Mr. Obama’s signature global warming policy, the Clean Power Plan, as a “war on coal.”
Mr. Pruitt has been in lock step with those views.
“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” he wrote in National Review earlier this year. “That debate should be encouraged -- in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”
Indeed, scientists are in disagreement about “the degree and extent of global warming” and while the NYT and its allies condemn anyone who veers from “climate-change orthodoxy,” this issue does need to be debated, and someone with political courage needs to be able to stand up against the political and media bullying of the Left. Pruitt’s article in National Review raises important legal, scientific, and, yes, moral questions about EPA policies under President Obama, but to question the climate orthodoxy pushed by the Left today invites massive pushback, and there will be a firestorm of opposition to the Pruitt nomination.
Environmentalists and their political and media allies will claim that if Pruitt is appointed and reverses some of Obama’s policies (and there is no way he can overturn everything that the EPA did in the past eight years), then Earth itself will suffer an irreversible environmental decline. For example, when Republicans called for very minor changes in environmental policies in 1995, NYT columnist Anthony Lewis screeched that Republicans “want feces to wash up on our beaches.”

People who employ an “all-or-nothing” approach to environmental regulation are not interested in scientific debates; they want control of others. In his NR article, Pruitt showed that he understands not only the threat that the Obama EPA has created to the economy by pushing a costly and ineffective “alternative energy” regime, but also the real threat to free speech and scientific inquiry that the current regime of environmental correctness has unleashed.

At present, the EPA has become a grim reaper of environmental zealotry, and if the regulators there have their way, Americans will pay much more for electricity and be forced to sit in cold homes in winter and sweltering homes in summer because they won’t be able to afford to heat or cool their dwellings. Businesses will close and it will be increasingly difficult for people to climb out of poverty.

That is the reality of EPA zealotry: making life much more difficult now in order to make negligible changes in the climate (if their actions change anything at all). One hopes that someone like Scott Pruitt can reestablish some sanity in environmental regulation.

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland. He also signed a recent open letter calling for the U.S. Senate to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama Feeds Cuba’s Firing Squads - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Open borders are now okay for everyone except Cubans.

As a final sop to his friends and fans in Communist Cuba, President Obama yesterday abruptly ended the two decade-old compassionate immigration policy that allowed any Cuban who made it to U.S. soil to remain in this country and become a legal resident.

This middle finger to the Cuban community is likely part of a series of last-minute policy changes Obama makes on his way out of office. In addition to an expected avalanche of eleventh-hour executive orders and regulations, media reports indicate the White House is seriously considering commuting the 35-year prison term handed out to traitor Bradley Manning for leaking classified documents. Other possible clemency recipients include Hillary Clinton, Bowe Bergdahl, Edward Snowden, and terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the Blind Sheikh.

Cubans remain desperate to escape their miserable, impoverished nation and get into the United States. Since October 2012, more than 118,000 Cubans have shown up at border ports of entry, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The 118,000 figure includes more than 48,000 people who presented themselves at the border between October 2015 and November 2016.

Obama moved after reportedly reaching an agreement with Cuban officials Thursday.

Cuban officials praised Obama’s action, calling the new agreement "an important step in advancing relations" between the U.S. and Cuba that "aims to guarantee normal, safe and ordered migration." Ordered migration is apparently a Cuban euphemism for no migration.

"For this to work, the Cubans had to agree to take people back," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser who both lied about the loophole-ridden Iranian nuclear nonproliferation pact and worked with journalists to generate fake news stories about it to win support for it.

Fleeing Cuba is a crime. Whether the Cubans sent back to Cuba under Obama’s new fiat will be tortured, jailed, or executed is an open question but not one that Obama cares about.

After all, Cuba can’t afford to be losing the native-born slaves that it needs to feed its precarious economy and move forward, Rhodes may as well have argued.

"It's important that Cuba continue to have a young, dynamic population that are clearly serving as agents of change," he said.

The rescission of the "wet foot, dry foot" immigration policy in place for those fleeing Cuba wasn’t entirely unexpected. Raul Castro’s dictatorship and the Obama regime had been negotiating over the demise of the policy enacted by President Clinton in 1995 for months after full diplomatic relations were restored between the two countries.

"Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with U.S. law and enforcement priorities," Obama said yesterday in a statement. "By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries. The Cuban government has agreed to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea."

In other words, it’s all about Obama’s phony, arbitrary vision of “fairness.” Open borders are now okay for everyone except Cubans. The free ride will continue for non-Cubans sneaking across the country’s southern land border.

Why would Obama want to make it more difficult for these particular foreigners to stay in the U.S. and pursue citizenship? Because that what his friend Raul Castro wants and because Cubans are one minority group that tends to support Republicans.

Whatever one might think of offering special immigration status to a certain group of people, Obama is clearly not motivated by the desire to improve the integrity and fairness of our immigration system as his open-borders ideology and lawless approach to immigration in general demonstrates.

Obama also simultaneously killed off the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, which President George W. Bush began in 2006. Immigration parole refers to temporary permission to stay in the United States granted to someone who does not have a valid immigrant visa. The Bush program allowed Cuban physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals to seek parole in the U.S. while abroad on assignments.

"By providing preferential treatment to Cuban medical personnel, the medical parole program ... risks harming the Cuban people," Obama said, pretending that Cuba’s atrocious health care system, which requires patients in its squalid, vermin-infested, decrepit hospitals to provide their own bedding, needles, and basic supplies could get any worse.

Cubans already present in the U.S. under both the "wet foot, dry foot" policy and the medical parole program will be allowed to continue along in the process toward legal status, according to the Obama administration.

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who moved from Cuba as a child, criticized the elimination of the medical parole program, calling it a "foolhardy concession to a regime that sends its doctors to foreign nations in a modern-day indentured servitude."

Ros-Lehtinen also took aim at Obama for not “standing up for U.S. democratic values and seeking the return of fugitives from U.S. justice like Joanne Chesimard [a cop killer also known as Assata Shakur] or seeking compensation for U.S. citizens for their confiscated properties.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, another Florida Republican, described the immigration policy change as a “last act of diminishing lifelines to Cubans languishing in totalitarianism [that] is one final despicable betrayal of a people who deserve better from an American president.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) also denounced the decision.
Throughout their murderous reign, hundreds of thousands of Cubans have fled from the Castros’ regime seeking safe haven in the United States. Those who further risked their lives by sea and reached our shores have been afforded the opportunity to expedite their claims to U.S. citizenship.
These policies reflect our commitment to the values of liberty and democracy. We should never deny a Cuban refugee fleeing a brutal regime entry into the United States. We must remind ourselves every day of the continued oppression and human suffering that is happening – not only halfway around the world, but just 90 miles off our shores.
To be sure, today’s announcement will only serve to tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people.
A visa lottery program that allows 20,000 Cubans to come to the U.S. legally each year will remain untouched, administration officials said.

When he becomes president in a week Donald Trump, who has criticized the current administration for cozying up to the leaders of the tropical workers’ paradise, could reverse Obama’s decisions.

Matthew Vadum


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Pro-Israel protest counters Paris conference - Mordechai Sones

by Mordechai Sones

Lev HaOlam and other activists arrive in Paris.

Activists from Lev HaOlam and other organizations arrived in Paris today to protest the anti-Israel conference that convenes there today.

Cornelia, an activist for the organization who came specially from Holland with approximately 120 more Dutch people to Paris for the demonstration, told Arutz Sheva, "We are gathering here to stand up for the Nation of Israel, to stand up for the G-d of Israel, because of this unrighteousness that the seventy nations are coming together ...

"They think they can determine the land and who the land belongs to, but the land belongs to G-d and G-d gave it to the Jewish and the Israel people....So it is an absolute abomination that the seventy think that with John Kerry and Obama, their last deeds before they leave the White House, they think they can do this; it is absolutely terrible.

"But it's a fantastic atmosphere here, there are many, many people, and it's absolutely wonderful...Am Yisrael Chai!"

Photo: Lev Haolam

Mordechai Sones


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Transparent Presidency - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

We learned precisely who he is.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

President Barack Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration in US history.

And the truth is, it was. At least in relation to his policies toward the Muslim world, Obama told us precisely what he intended to do and then he did it.

A mere week remains of Obama’s tenure in office.

But Obama remains intent on carrying on as if he will never leave power. He has pledged to continue to implement his goals for the next week and then to serve as the most outspoken ex-president in US history.

In all of Obama’s recent appearances, his message is one of vindication. I came. I succeeded. I will continue to succeed. I represent the good people, the people of tomorrow. My opponents represent the Manichean, backward past. We will fight them forever and we will prevail.

Tuesday Obama gave his final interview to the Israeli media to Ilana Dayan from Channel 2’s Uvda news magazine. Dayan usually tries to come off as an intellectual. On Tuesday’s show, she cast aside professionalism however, and succumbed to her inner teenybopper. Among her other questions, she asked Obama the secret to his preternatural ability to touch people’s souls.

The only significant exchange in their conversation came when Dayan asked Obama about the speech he gave on June 4, 2009, in Cairo. Does he still stand by all the things he said in that speech? Would he give that speech again today, given all that has since happened in the region, she asked.

Absolutely, Obama responded.

The speech, he insisted was “aspirational” rather than programmatic. And the aspirations that he expressed in that address were correct.

If Dayan had been able to put aside her hero worship for a moment, she would have stopped Obama right then and there. His claim was preposterous.

But, given her decision to expose herself as a slobbering groupie, Dayan let it slide.

To salvage the good name of the journalism, and more important, to understand Obama’s actual record and its consequences, it is critical however to return to that speech.

Obama’s speech at Cairo University was the most important speech of his presidency. In it he laid out both his “aspirational” vision of relations between the West and the Islamic world and his plans for implementing his vision. The fundamentally transformed world he will leave President-elect Donald Trump to contend with next Friday was transformed on the basis of that speech.

Obama’s address that day at Cairo University lasted for nearly an hour. In the first half he set out his framework for understanding the nature of the US’s relations with the Muslim world and the relationship between the Western world and Islam more generally. He also expressed his vision for how that relationship should change.

The US-led West he explained had sinned against the Muslim world through colonialism and racism.

It needed to make amends for its past and make Muslims feel comfortable and respected, particularly female Muslims, covered from head to toe.

As for the Muslims, well, September 11 was wrong but didn’t reflect the truth of Islam, which is extraordinary. Obama thrice praised “the Holy Koran.” He quoted it admiringly. He waxed poetic in his appreciation for all the great contributions Islamic civilization has made to the world – he even made up a few. And he insisted falsely that Islam has always been a significant part of the American experience.

In his dichotomy between two human paths – the West’s and Islam’s – although he faulted the records of both, Obama judged the US and the West more harshly than Islam.

In the second half of his address, Obama detailed his plans for changing the West’s relations with Islam in a manner that reflected the true natures of both.

In hindsight, it is clear that during the seven and a half years of his presidency that followed that speech, all of Obama’s actions involved implementing the policy blueprint he laid out in Cairo.

He never deviated from the course he spelled out.

Obama promised to withdraw US forces from Iraq regardless of the consequences. And he did.

He promised he would keep US forces in Afghanistan but gave them no clear mission other than being nice to everyone and giving Afghans a lot of money. And those have been his orders ever since.

Then he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.

That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.

In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.

Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.

Rather than fire missiles at Israel, he said, Hamas should learn from its fellow victims of white European colonialist racists in South Africa, in India, and among the African-American community.

Like them Hamas should use nonviolent means to achieve its just aims.

Obama’s decision attack Israel at the UN Security Council last month, his attempts to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire demands during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, his consistent demand that Israel renounce Jewish civil and property rights in united Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, his current refusal to rule out the possibility of enabling another anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council next week, and his contempt for the Israeli Right all are explained, envisioned and justified explicitly or implicitly in his Cairo speech.

One of the more notable but less discussed aspects of Obama’s assertion that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong in the speech, was his embrace of Hamas. Obama made no mention of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority or Fatah in his speech. He mentioned only Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which shares the Brotherhood’s commitment to annihilating Israel and wiping out the Jewish people worldwide.

Sitting in the audience that day in Cairo were members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak rightly viewed Obama’s insistence that the brothers be invited to his address as a hostile act. Due to this assessment, Mubarak boycotted the speech and refused to greet Obama at the Cairo airport.

Two years later, Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him.

Back to the speech.

Having embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, branded Israel a colonial implant and discredited the US’s moral claim to world leadership, Obama turned his attention to Iran.

Obama made clear that his intention as president was to appease the ayatollahs. America he explained had earned their hatred because in 1953 the CIA overthrew the pro-Soviet regime in Iran and installed the pro-American shah in its place.

True, since then the Iranians have done all sorts of mean things to America. But America’s original sin of intervening in 1953 justified Iran’s aggression.

Obama indicated that he intended to appease Iran by enabling its illicit nuclear program to progress.

Ignoring the fact that Iran’s illegal nuclear program placed it in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama argued that as an NPT signatory, Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program. As for the US and the rest of the members of the nuclear club, Obama intended to convince everyone to destroy their nuclear arsenals.

And in the succeeding years, he took a hacksaw to America’s nuclear force.

After Obama’s speech in Cairo, no one had any cause for surprise at the reports this week that he approved the transfer of 116 tons of uranium to Iran. Likewise, no one should have been surprised by his nuclear deal or by his willingness to see Iran take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No one should be surprised by his cash payoffs to the regime or his passivity in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Everything that Obama has done since he gave that speech was alluded to or spelled out that day.

Certainly, nothing he has done was inconsistent with what he said.

The consequences of Obama’s worldview and the policies he laid out in Cairo have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone. The Islamic world is in turmoil. The rising forces are those that Obama favored that day: The jihadists.

ISIS, which Obama allowed to develop and grow, has become the ideological guide not only of jihadists in the Middle East but of Muslims in the West as well. Consequently it has destabilized not only Iraq and Syria but Europe as well. As the victims of the Islamist massacres in San Bernardino, Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando and beyond can attest, American citizens are also paying the price for Obama’s program.

Thanks to Obama, the Iranian regime survived the Green Revolution. Due to his policies, Iran is both the master of its nuclear fate and the rising regional hegemon.

Together with its Russian partners, whose return to regional power after a 30-year absence Obama enabled, Iran has overseen the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Sunnis in Syria and paved the way for the refugee crisis that threatens the future of the European Union.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist leader, was a principle beneficiary of Obama’s admiration of Islamism. Erdogan rode Obama’s wave to destroy the last vestiges of the secular Turkish Republic.

Now he is poised to leave NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.

Obama and his followers see none of this. Faithful only to their ideology, Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences. They refuse to recognize that the hatred for Western civilization and in particular of the Jewish state Obama gave voice to in Cairo, and his parallel expression of admiration for radical Islamic enemies of the West, have had and will continue to have horrific consequences for the US and for the world as a whole.

Cairo is Obama’s legacy. His followers’ refusal to acknowledge this truth means that it falls to those Obama reviles to recognize the wages of the most transparent presidency in history. It is their responsibility to undo the ideological and concrete damage to humanity the program he first unveiled in that address and assiduously implemented ever since has wrought.

Caroline Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.