When will American Jews, like the Israpundit and Frontpage websites, recognize that the number one enemy of the Jews is the US Government?

All those who like editor of Israpundit Ted Belman do not spell out to their readers that the US Government is and always has been the enemy of the Jews is doing to those very Jews a great disservice.

The American Jewish leaders, and various Jewish leaders scattered around the Diaspora, are potentially the most lethal traitors to the Jewish people that their 3000 year struggle has ever known.

According the the noted researcher, Professor Francisco Gil White, there is due another Holocaust of the Jews, another great killing of the Jews.

So these American and Canadian Jewish leaders, like Belman on Israpundit, had better make up their minds fast.

If they stay with their support on a world stage for the US Imperialists, including their suppression of the Serbs, then history will damn them as traitors to the Jewish cause.

The report which is just today published by YNet News is quite obviously the truth. The American Government is working closely with Hamas in order to destroy Israel.

4ionternational believes that the US Government also worked closely with the IHH, and with the supporters of IHH in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in order to launch the Flotillas of Hate, which they use in order to destabilize the Netanyahu Government

The “Grand” Scheme of Obama is to replace Netanyahu with Livni. It is urgent for Obama to get Livni in power. That is at the centre of the Obama strategy.

We on 4international are totally opposed to Israpundit and the type of “leadership” which Belman puts forward.

In the leadership of Israpundit now is a man calling himself Yamit82. It is very doubtful that anybody on Israpundit knows the real identity of this character.

More on this character again but the main thing as regards this article is that Yamit82 is an ultra sectarian religious maniac, who refuses to defend Netanyahu against the attacks of the US Government.

This Yamit82 is a confirmed anti Trotskyist as indeed is Belman. That is the main thing which unites them

In the face of these attacks by the US Government on the Israeli Government of Netanyahu we on 4international defend without any conditions Netanyahu.

We challenge Belman to say publicly does he defend Netan yahu without any conditions against the US Government?

If Belman does indeed do so then he is in conflict with a number of people, especially Yamit82, on his website.

If on the other hand (and I think this is the more likely) Belman keeps quiet then he is in fact a political opportunist. Essentially he associates on his website with people who are traitors to the Jewish cause.

The YNet report says:

The US denied on Saturday reports by an Arab newspaper saying officials were holding secret talks with Hamas.

Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor said the story was “inaccurate”, and that it was unfortunate the paper’s editors neglected to request a comment by the US administration.

According to the report published by Al-Quds Al-Arabi Friday, official and unofficial US sources have asked the Hamas to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the administration.


A senior Hamas figure told the newspaper that the Americans fear discussing the talks publicly would “rouse the Jewish lobby and other pressure groups in the US and cause them to pressure the administration to suspend all talks with Hamas”.

Hamas has been blacklisted by the US State Department, which considers it a terror organization and has made it illegal for any US official to meet with its leaders. But the group has been attempting to gain worldwide legitimacy through international relations. The US denied on Saturday reports by an Arab newspaper saying officials were holding secret talks with Hamas.

Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor said the story was “inaccurate”, and that it was unfortunate the paper’s editors neglected to request a comment by the US administration.

According to the report published by Al-Quds Al-Arabi Friday, official and unofficial US sources have asked the Hamas to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the administration.,7340,L-3910827,00.html

This is following the same pattern as in the destruction of Yugoslavia. There the US adopted the known antisemite Tudjman which led to the massacre of the Krajina Serbs.

Then they adopted Izetbegovic who was actually a big wheel in the Holocaust of Serbs, Jews and Romany during the Holocaust in the Balkans.

After that it was the drug running thug Thaci of the KLA in Kosovo.

After the War the US brought into their pay tens of thousands of Nazis (Christopher Simpson Blowback)

At the same time they recruited the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood (according to John Loftus) out of whom emerged Bin Laden.

According to respected British journalist Eve Ann Prentice it was Izetbegovic in Bosnia, and under the control of the US Government, who provided the platform for Bin Laden to launch the horrific 9-11 attack on New York workers


The equally horrific Yamit82 is opposed to any discussion on Israpundit, or anywhere else in the Jewish movement, of the implications of the destruction of Yugoslavia by this alliance of Islam and US Government

The implications for Jews are immense from this kind of Jewish leader.

Ted Belman, editor of Israpundit, could start by telling the public just who is this character who calls himself “Yamit82”



Profreading: Einde O’Callaghan, December 2006.

The former prominent colonial bureaucrat of Great Britain, Sir Roger Casement, by conviction a revolutionary Irish nationalist, the go-between for Germany and the Irish uprising, on being sentenced to death declared, ‘I prefer to sit on the bench of the accused than in the seat of the accuser,’ before the reading of the sentence, which ran according to the old formula that Casement should be ‘hung by the neck until dead’, at which God was invited to have mercy on his soul.

Should the sentence be carried out? This question must have given Asquith and Lloyd George many troubled hours. To execute Casement would make it even more difficult for the opportunist, nationalist and purely parliamentary Irish party, led by Redmond, to ratify a new compromise with the government of the UK on the blood of the insurrectionaries. To pardon Casement, after having carried out so many executions, would mean an open ‘display of indulgence to a high-ranking traitor’. This is the demagogic tune of the British social-imperialists of the Hyndman type – downright blood-thirsty hooligans. But however the personal fate of Casement is resolved the sentence on him will bring to a conclusion the dramatic episode of the Irish uprising.

In so far as the affair concerned the purely military operations of the insurrectionaries, the government, as we know, turned out comparatively easily to be master of the situation. The general national movement, however it was expressed in the heads of the nationalist dreamers, did not materialize at all. The Irish countryside did not rise up. The Irish bourgeoisie, as also the upper, more influential layer of the Irish intelligentsia, remained on the sidelines. The urban workers fought and died, together with revolutionary enthusiasts from the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. The historical basis for the national revolution had disappeared even in backward Ireland. Inasmuch as the Irish movements in the last century had assumed a popular character, they had invariably fed on the social hostility of the deprived and exhausted pauper-farmer towards the omnipotent English landlord.

But if for the latter Ireland was only an object of agrarian plunder and exploitation, for British imperialism it was a necessary guarantee of their dominion over the seas. In a pamphlet written on the eve of the war, Casement, speculating about Germany, proves that the independence of Ireland means the ‘freedom of the seas’ and the death blow to the naval domination of Britain. This is true in so far as an ‘independent’ Ireland could exist only as an outpost of an imperialist state hostile to Britain and as its military naval base against British supremacy over the sea routes. It was Gladstone who first expounded with full clarity the military imperialist consideration of Great Britain over the interests of the Anglo-Irish landlords and laid the basis for the wide agrarian legislation by which the state transferred to the Irish farmers the landlords’ land, very generously compensating the latter, of course. Anyway, after the agrarian reforms of 1881-1903, the farmers turned into conservative small property owners, whose gaze the green banner of national independence is no longer able to tear away from their plots of land.

The redundant Irish intelligentsia flowed in their thousands into the towns of Great Britain as lawyers, journalists, commercial employees, etc. In this way, for the majority of them, the ‘national question’ got lost. On the other hand, the independent Irish commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, in so far as it has formed over the past decades, immediately adopted an antagonistic position towards the young Irish proletariat, giving up the national revolutionary struggle and entering the camp of imperialism. The young Irish working class, taking shape in an atmosphere saturated with the heroic recollections of national rebellions, and clashing with the egoistic, narrow-minded, imperial arrogance of British trade unionism, naturally swing between nationalism and syndicalism, ever ready to unite these two concepts in their revolutionary consciousness. It attracts the young intelligentsia and individual nationalist enthusiasts, who, in their turn, supply the movement with a preponderance of the green flag over the red. In this way, the ‘national revolution’, even in Ireland, in practice has become an uprising of workers, and the obviously isolated position of Casement in the movement only serves to emphasize this fact still deeper.

In a pathetic and shameful article, Plekhanov recently pointed to the ‘harmful’ character of the Irish uprising for the cause of freedom, rejoicing that the Irish nation ‘to their credit’ had realized this and not supported the revolutionary madmen. Only complete patriotic softening of all the joints could lead anyone to interpret the situation as if the Irish peasants had declined to participate in the revolution from the standpoint of the international situation, thus saving the ‘honour’ of Ireland. In actual fact they were led only by the obtuse egoism of the farmer and complete indifference to everything beyond the bounds of their plots of land. It was precisely because of this and only this that they supplied the London government with such a quick victory over the heroic defenders of the Dublin barricades. The undoubted personal courage, representing the hopes and methods of the past, is over. But the historical role of the Irish proletariat is only beginning. Already into this uprising – under an archaic banner – it has injected its class resentment against militarism and imperialism. That resentment from now on will not subside. On the contrary, it will find an echo throughout Great Britain. Scottish soldiers smashed the Dublin barricades. But in Scotland itself coal-miners are rallying round the red flag, raised by Maclean and his friends. Those very workers, who at the moment the Hendersons are trying to chain to the bloody chariot of imperialism, will revenge themselves against the hangman Lloyd George.

(Nashe Slovo, 4 July 1916)


The Irish rising has been crushed. Those whom it was thought necessary to shoot first have been shot. The rest wait for their personal fate to be decided after that of the rising itself. The triumph of British rule is so complete that Prime Minister Asquith considered it possible to declare from his parliamentary platform the government’s intention to show ‘reasonable clemency’ towards the imprisoned Irish revolutionaries. In so doing Asquith referred to the good fruits of the clemency shown by General Botha to those who took part in the South African rising. Asquith refrained from mentioning General Botha himself. Twelve years before the present war he stood at the head of the Boers who shed their blood in a struggle against British imperialism; but at the beginning of the war he put down a rising of his own fellow-countrymen. Thus Asquith remains wholly within the traditions of British imperialism when he crowns the work of ‘law and order’ specialists in Dublin and other places with the proclamation of the principles of ‘expedient’ humanity – humanity, that is, within the limits of what is … expedient. So far, then, everything is clear, and there can be no doubt in the minds of our readers about Asquith’s statement, which goes beyond what it is permissible to express in the French Republic in 1916.

But the matter does not end there. We have an uprising crushed – buildings razed, human corpses, men and women in chains. We have triumphant authority making a gesture of ‘philanthropy’. But in this picture which history has set in the frame of the world war, on this ‘stage within a stage’, one other figure is missing: the French social-patriot, the standard bearer of ‘liberating’ war and the principles of national ‘freedom’, commenting on the official ‘humanity’ of the Dublin government.

To fill this gap, and add the finishing touch to our picture of the official governmental, patriotic aspect of our epoch, M. Renaudel published an article on Clemency in the pages of his paper Humanité, which until now has not carried a single word about the Irish rising.

Now of course he, Renaudel, knows that there were facts in the past which clouded relations between Ireland and Britain. He allows that these facts could not but leave bitterness to this day in the most irreconcilable Irish hearts. But the Irish chose a most fatal hour for their action. He, Renaudel, had not doubted for a moment that the British government would do everything necessary to remain master of the situation, and he was not mistaken. But therefore, ‘Britain, who is fighting with her allies for the rights of nations, can and must show magnanimity.’ And that is why being simultaneously a friend of Britain and of Ireland, of Britain which crushed down and of Ireland which was crushed, he, Renaudel, could only welcome Asquith’s magnanimous gesture.

One might think this was quite enough. One might think it physically impossible for social-patriotic cynicism to go any further than masquerading like this as the advocate of clemency to a set of frenzied butchers. But no, Renaudel has also to introduce a national French factor in order to explain and rationalise his sage statesman-like pleading on behalf of the vanquished and justify it to official France. ‘Of course,’ he writes, ‘in a land which weeps over Corneille’s verses and the noble farewell to Cinna by Auguste – in such a land it causes no surprise if we counsel that clemency be shown.’

Thus the spiritual heirs and political descendants of Thiers and General Gallifet are reassured. For didn’t they, who wept on reading Racine, show clemency to the fighters of the Paris Commune? Here is the real crowning of the spiritual reconciliations between Gallifet’s descendants and the offspring of the movement in whose history the Commune is indelibly inscribed.

(May 1916)

The Irish Rebellion of 1916

By V. I. Lenin

The views of the opponents of self-determination lead to the conclusion that the vitality of small nations oppressed by imperialism has already been sapped, that they cannot play any role against imperialism, that support of their purely national aspirations will lead to nothing, etc. The imperialist war of 1914–16 has provided facts which refute such conclusions.

The war proved to be an epoch of crisis for the West-European nations, and for imperialism as a whole. Every crisis discards the conventionalities, tears away the outer wrappings, sweeps away the obsolete and reveals the underlying springs and forces. What has it revealed from the standpoint of the movement of oppressed nations? In the colonies there have been a number of attempts at rebellion, which the oppressor nations naturally did all they could to hide by means of a military censorship.

Nevertheless, it is known that in Singapore the British brutally suppressed a mutiny among their Indian troops; that there were attempts at rebellion in French Annam [Vietnam] and in the German Cameroons; that in Europe, on the one hand, there was a rebellion in Ireland, which the freedom-loving English, who did not dare to extend conscription to Ireland, suppressed by executions, and, on the other, the Austrian Government passed the death sentence on the deputies of the Czech Diet for treason, and shot whole Czech regiments for the same crime.

This list is, of course, far from complete. Nevertheless, it proves that, owing to the crisis of imperialism, the flames of national revolt have flared up both in the colonies and in Europe, and that national sympathies and antipathies have manifested themselves in spite of the draconian threats and measures of repression.

All this before the crisis of imperialism hit its peak; the power of the imperialist bourgeoisie was yet to be undermined (this may be brought about by a war of attrition but has not yet happened) and the proletarian movements in the imperialist countries were still very feeble. What will happen when the war has caused complete exhaustion, or when, in one state at least, the power of the bourgeoisie has been shaken under the blows of proletarian struggle, as that of tsarism in 1905?

A ‘putsch’ or national rebellion?

On May 9, 1916, there appeared, in Berner Tagwacht, the organ of the Zimmerwald group (1), including some of the Leftists, an article on the Irish rebellion entitled Their Song Is Over and signed with the initials K.R. It described the Irish rebellion as being nothing more nor less than a putsch, for, as the author argued, the Irish question was an agrarian one, the peasants had been pacified by reforms, and the nationalist movement remained only a purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing….

The term putsch, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses.

The centuries-old Irish national movement, having passed through various stages and combinations of class interest, manifested itself, in particular, in a mass Irish National Congress in America (Vorwarts, March 20, 1916) which called for Irish independence; it also manifested itself in street fighting conducted by a section of the urban petty bourgeoisie and a section of the workers after a long period of mass agitation, demonstrations, suppression of newspapers, etc.

Whoever calls such a rebellion a putsch is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semiproletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.—to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution.

So one army lines up in one place and says, We are for socialism, and another, somewhere else and says, We are for imperialism, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a putsch.

Whoever expects a pure social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution is….

The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will participate in it—without such participation, mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible—and just as inevitably will they bring into the movement their prejudices, their reactionary fantasies, their weaknesses and errors.

But objectively they will attack capital, and the class- conscious vanguard of the revolution, the advanced proletariat, expressing this objective truth of a variegated and discordant, motley and outwardly fragmented, mass struggle, will be able to unite and direct it, capture power, seize the banks, expropriate the trusts which all hate (though for different reasons!), and introduce other dictatorial measures which in their totality will amount to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the victory of socialism, which, however, will by no means immediately purge itself of petty bourgeois slag.

Social-Democracy, we read in the Polish theses, must utilize the struggle of the young colonial bourgeoisie against European imperialism in order to sharpen the revolutionary crisis in Europe.

Is it not clear that it is least of all permissible to contrast Europe to the colonies in this respect? The struggle of the oppressed nations in Europe, a struggle capable of going all the way to insurrection and street fighting, capable of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law, will sharpen the revolutionary crisis in Europe to an infinitely greater degree than a much more developed rebellion in a remote colony.

A blow delivered against the power of the English imperialist bourgeoisie by a rebellion in Ireland is a hundred times more significant politically than a blow of equal force delivered in Asia or in Africa.

1. Zimmerwald, Switzerland, was the location of a September 1915 international conference of Socialists who opposed voting for war credits for their governments. The Zimmerwald group refers to supporters of this international current. Lenin led a left wing at that conference, and his supporters were known as the Zimmerwald Left.



The 1916 Easter Rebellion, led by trade union organizer and socialist James Connolly and nationalist poet and educationalist Patrick Pearse, is one of the most historic events in Ireland’s history.

It is also of international significance.

The Easter Rising coincided with the effort of Roger Casement to bring his assistance to the Irish Rebels. Casement was dropped off in the South of Ireland by German submarine (April 21, 1916, Kerry) but was soon arrested by the British, and was quickly tried for treason, and hanged by the British.

At roughly the same time the Irish Rebels, having fought bravely, were suppressed and in a series of shocking events, their leaders were executed in Dublin. James Connolly was very seriously wounded and in order to carry out the execution the British military strapped Connolly to a chair to face the bullets of the firing squad.

The whole episode of the Irish Rising and its bloody suppression by the British was a major event internationally and historically.


Plekhanov had been the Father of Russian socialism and when he came out in opposition to the Nationalist Rising this made leaders like Lenin and Trotsky very angry with Plekhanov.

This was a socialist leader attacking a national movement. Moreover, not just any national movement, but one which was clearly in the category of a national liberation movement

Trotsky referred to Plekhanov opposition to the 1916 Rising as a case of softening of the joints on the part of the older man

There were obviously very great theoretical and political issues involved in both the Plekhanov position and the Trotsky and Lenin answers to Plekhanov.

These serious answers to Plekhanov go back to Marx and Engels and the type of relations they had with the Irish rebel movement, the Fenians.

These 2 great leaders of the early working class were always on friendly terms with the Irish Rebels. Yet in my opinion they never actually came to terms in a satisfactory way with the Irish rebels and with the national issue in general.

Today it is very important to understand the position of the Irish rebels in 1916, the position of course of the British Imperialists in Ireland, then the unconditional support of Lenin and Trotsky for the Irish rebels and their critique of Plekhanov.


The critique of Plekhanov represented a major step forward in the thinking of international revolutionary socialist theory, or Marxism

This writer thinks that the 1916 event and the thoughts of Lenin and Trotsky, their separation from Plekhanov, represent a vital stage in the overall way that socialists would approach nationalism.

One of these nationalisms which emerged was Zionism. This then today is of huge topical interest and importance.

Look at it this way. Trotsky at the 6th Zionist Congress in Bayle in 1902 had been hugely critical of Zionism and Herzl. This represented not the isolated position of Trotsky but the whole movement on the left.

Leon Trotsky and Lenin were never dogmatists. They had theory yes, but that theory was never like a religion.

I believe that the 1916 Rising was one of many stages which led to a claim which I make about Leon Trotsky, a claim which is heavily disputed.



The claim is that by the 1930s Trotsky had become himself very much a Zionist, a believer and supporter of Zionism and—This was a Zionist of a type that the world over 3000 years of Zionism had never seen

4international, our little website which represents this view, is being scorned and attacked by all on the Left.

4international is totally on the side of Zionism. We are in fact Zionists.


We on 4international are Zionists of a new kind! Our type of Zionism the world has never before seen.

We are Zionists from the standpoint of revolutionary socialism. We are revolutionary socialists; we are Trotskyists, Leninist and Marxist. There is no contradiction


In fact read again around the issue of the 1916 Easter Rising. You will find that we are in the same camp as Trotsky and Lenin, while the haters of Zionism today are in the camp of Plekhanov.

To show this, take a few facts about Irish nationalism. In this regard the 1916 Rebellion is a good illustration.

The Irish were fighting for their Homeland against the British, who were off base, out of their Homeland, oppressing the Irish and were acting as “Imperialists”.

There was a long history to the Irish national struggle. You can take it back to the Neolithic farmers who created the quite advanced astronomical device which is the Newgrange Neolithic Monument outside of Droheda.

The Jews in Judea also go back many thousands of years and there is indeed a similarity with the Irish

But there the similarity ends because there is a contrast between the early “Irish” and the Jews.

The early “Irish” of Newgrange fame were not conscious of themselves as Irish. But the Jews of Judea were very much so, and no less than HG Wells pointed out that on their return from Babylon captivity the Jews were “the finished article”.

Which brings to the central point: If the Irish have a serious and authentic national struggle then the Jews as a national entity are even more authentic and serious than the Irish. A better way to put it…they both are.

So what happened? Why is the nationalism of the Jews today so reviled by those who call themselves “left”?

Why are the Irish nationalists in their eyes “good boys” but the Jewish nationalists in the form of Zionists “bad boys”?

The exact same could be written about the antisemites of the left which we see around us today. Not all are Stalinists. Some call themselves, tragically, Trotskyists


It needs to be kept fairly simple to answer these because it is painful to see the knots they tie themselves in

Zionism is Jewish nationalism

It is really not anything more or less than Jewish nationalism.


What then about Irish nationalism. Is Irish nationalism, the struggle conducted by the 1916 Revolutionaries in the Rising, was and is it something reactionary?


That was precisely the point that Trotsky disagreed with Plekhanov on. Perhaps its methods were inadequate but was it a reactionary Rising. No of course not. It was brave and progressive. The reactionaries were the British political leaders, the army generals and the British Tommy

The exact same applies to Zionism. It applies to all the schemes and all the campaigns of Herzl

These schemes may not lead in the end to success. But they were not only not reactionary. They were progressive. Even Herzl trying to deal with antisemites in order to release Jews was progressive because the content was progressive.

Those who attack Zionism in the same mindless way as Plekhanov attacked the 1916 Rising are the same as Plekhanov then.

On that basis Trotsky attacked Plekhanov.


Why did Plekhanov attack the 1916 Rebels and took the part of British Imperialism, an incredible thing for a Marxist to do?

Why did Trotsky and Lenin sympathize with the Irish Rebels and separate themselves from Plekhanov?


The position of Marx, Engels right through the Bolsheviks which included Lenin and Trotsky was totally contradictory and wrong towards Zionism

Zionism was the wish of the Jewish people to have a Homeland in Zion

This did have an open religious aspect. Perhaps it was a crude form of anti religiousness that made the Bolsheviks oppose the plans of Herzl.


I think that was involved lthough certainly not anything so crude on the part of Lenin and above all on the part of Trotsky. But I believe it was much more a wrong position towards national movements, towards nationalism, which although can be misused is a progressive factor


Did Marx support the Irish rebels of his day without reservation. I do not think so. There was always a theme that the English workers had to help the Irish and without that help (from the English workers) the Irish could and even worse should do nothing). That was a most reactionary tendency inside the workers movement.

Right to argue that the aid of the English workers was necessary. Bu that is a different matter. The first position to take was to support the Irish rebels without conditions. That was the difference of Lenin and Trotsky with Plekhanov.


Lenin and Trotsky simply did not see the Jewish people as a nation.

They saw them as Jews who had to be defended against anti-Semitism. But not as a nation.

Lenin approached nations in so far as supporting them would aid the socialist revolution. I believe this is wrong.

These nations existed long before the working class came into play.

In the case of the Jews they go back 3 to 4000 of years. That is a very long time in anybody’s book

Lenin and Trotsky, especially Lenin, were very cerebral kind of people. I believe that theoretically Trotsky was assessing Fascism as a new political phenomenon from say 1923 when Mussolini began to emerge, then following the German Fascism most closely, watching also Spain most closely. He had reached his conclusions about the Jews as nation in the course of this intense theoretical work. Man is also an emotional animal and this also was involved. Trotsky WAS a Jew. The emotional aspect, for my money, was clear to see in the interview with Edelson which is one o fthe most important qualitative point in the study of this whole issue

We cannot emphasise this strong enough or enough times.


Trotsky did not say to the Jews: leave Europe and set up a socialist commonwealth in Palestine

Trotsky did say to the Jews, leave Europe, get to Palestine and there set up a jewish state, where you must live alone and defend yourself against anti-Semitism

In other words a Jewish state without any ifs and buts.


That is like completing the circle. Lenin and Trotsky came close to precisely that in their attack on Plekhanov who would not support Irish nationalism in 1916. Lenin died prematurely. Trotsky went on to create the great truth in his synthesis of all of these Marxist experiences. In the late 1930s Trotsky had become a Zionist, but an entirely new type, a Zionist who believed in the world socialist revolution, the only way in which Jewish people could have a space where they could be themselves, in the way they and only they decided best for them.

Some points to remember

The Bund were anti Zionist in that they opposed the creation of a nation state of the Jews, in Zion. They stood for the mirage of organizing “independently” in each individual state…an incomprehensible position

Lenin and the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, passed a law which made anti-Semitism punishable by death, they wanted Jews to take part in the Russian Revolution which was surely right, but they opposed the Jews as a nation in Zion

Trotsky was the foremost fighter against Nazism, and therefore anti-Semitism. But crucially he broke with the Marxist past and asserted that the Jews were a nation, and that their place was in Zion. Marx has hinted at that in his visit to Jerusalem of 1852. Trotsky could not have made this more explicit. He remained a socialist revolutionary. Trotsky had become a Zionist the likes of which had never before been seen. It was his greatest achievement.

Stalin, what can be said of him?

We know he was a butcher and the very devil incarnate! Accept that.

On another level, Stalin was a political opportunist, an operator, a ruthless operator which alone brought him success, but politically and theoretically bankrupt, a passing phenomenon really

Stalin used the Jews. He was anti-Semitic in order to fight Trotsky and the Left Opposition in 1925 to 1927. Then in 198 he thought the Jews could be used to fight Britain. With the Jews though rejecting Stalin and Stalinism, swinging behind post war and boom time America Stalin turned again and became very anti Jew. His anti-Semitism again surfaced. That laid the basis for the extreme anti-Semitism of the Breznev era and jew persecution out of which came Sharansky. Unlike Trotsky who moved steadily from one principle to another, a progressive development, Stalin was not grounded in a scientific method, and his life and political work were a disaster. For himself personally and for everything that he touched. Stalin played one positive role which was as leader in the War, when according to Deutcher he subordinated himself to the expertise of the military generals of the red Army. In that he was repeating, however inadequately, the method of Trotsky, an ironic twist of history.

The Contemporary Scene

Yes they certainly can write, these modern antisemites, but their writing revolves around the old Plekhanov theme, the Irish are not allowed to fight for their nation, the Jews are not allowed to fight for their nation

One such is the following:

The Israeli working class is under attack and sooner or later, in spite of the existing right wing leadership of the Histadruth, will begin to fight back. Such a struggle will open the possibilities for many Jews to separate themselves from the American and the Israeli ruling class and allow them to identify themselves with working class internationalism. This is the only way to fight anti-Semitism.

December 2003.


From a series of articles, and there are thousands of similar on the web,


The above is the very opposite of what Leon Trotsky was fighting for in the 1930s, especially in the latter half of that decade.

It is the very same “mistake” made by Plekhanov towards 1916.

Trotsky fought for a JEWISH state in the then Palestine. That is the God’s honest truth!

Why should Jews separate from the Israeli ruling class, that is other Jews, and accept the word of what he calls “internationalism”

What is this “internationalism” that he talks about?

Where is this internationalism calling for the defence of Israel as a Jewish state.

We are back in a real sense to Plekhanov and this guy writing above is a Plekhanov because as Israel is being attacked by Arab Imperialism, by Islamist Imperialism, by US Imperialism (and the list goes on and on) this bloke above, Yossi blab la bla, is taking the same position as Plekhanov.

Just as Plekhanov attacked the Irish he is attacking the Jews of Israel. Both were wrong in his eyes. Both fought for their nation.

Yossi has nothing to do with Lenin or Trotsky…that is absolutely for sure



In the face of growing international antisemitism the revolutionary socialist organization 4international call on all workers to defend Israel unconditionally against world antisemitism.

4international is a revolutionary socialist organization built on the principles which Leon Trotsky, following on from Lenin and Marx, in opposition to Stalin, fought for

In the 1939s Leon Trotsky was a main advocate of Jews escaping from Europe and setting up a Jewish Homeland in Zion. Trotsky stood for the right of Jews to live alone and separately, where they could defend themselves from and agaionst the world antisemites.

This is even more the case today.

So we call on all international workers to defend Israel and we call on the Israeli working class to organize independently and to stand firm against these world antisemites.

We oppose in particular the lie which has been promoted by Tim Pat Coogan, Irish so-called historian, in his open letter to the Israeli Ambassador to Ireland.

The answer to Coogan is this:

In 1848 Israel was attacked by all of the Arab states…

The Arabs of Palestine left of their own accord

The Arabs of Palestine were not forced to leave

The Arabs of Palestine decided to leave because they were part and parcel of the planned Genocide of the Jews of Israel

The Arabs of Palestine in 1948 were led by Nazis who were escaping with the aid of the British and Americans from the crimes of the Holocaust

Hence Tim Pat Coogan in his letter to the Israeli Ambassador has promoted one of the worst Big Lies of History. As a historian Coogan should be ashamed and certainly our organization in Ireland 4international will campaign throughout the workers movement in Ireland to expose this Big lie of Tim Pat Coogan

Israeli workers must give the lead to the international working class.

The programme of the Israeli working class must incorporate these points:

* Organize independently

* Support without conditions the Jewish state of Israel against world antisemitism

* Support the IDF and encourage the IDF to strike with full force against the Nuclear Plans of Iran, while appealing to Iranian workers, women and youth to defend Israel

* Tell the Israeli Government that withdrawal from Gaza was a serious mistake, that Gaza must be retaken at once, and that the leaders of Hamas be executed for antisemitic crimes against Jews.

* Tell the Israeli Government that the OSLO Accords was a mistake and that all of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) must be retaken at once, and that the leaders of Fatah and Al Aqsa be executed for antisemitic crimes against Jews

* the blockade of Gaza must not under any conditions be lifted or relaxed in response to pressure from Obama and Britain (Blair). The Blockade must be intensified but the Blockade is only a temporary measure; Gaza must be retaken by force

* The Israeli workers must say that there can be no entry into Israel, West Bank or Gaza of George Mitchell, or any other member of the Obama team. The UN must be expelled from every inch of this area.


* In relation to the Flotillas, now being promoted even by the Vatican, these boats must not be boarded. These boats must be disabled at first. Then after a period of time in which those on board are asked to evacuate these boats must be sunk

* Israel must state the obvious, that Israel is at war, with Hamas, with the PA, with Hizbullah. Not one penny, not one piece of food, not one element of medecine, should be delivered to these enemies of Jews: Hamas, Fatah and Hizbullah. Did Britain and America deliver food etc to the civilians of Germany during the War? No!

Then it is the role of antisemitism to create a double standard for the Jews. The Israeli workers must not allow that. Israeli workers must state this position and appeal to International workers for support


That is the reality. Martin in deciding to expel an Israeli diplomat who he admits has nothing to do with any forging of passports shows that he is a supporter of the terrorists of Hamas.

Israel was totally within its rights to kill this terrorist who was the link man between iran and Hamas, and thus responsible for the war against Israel which Hamas has openly declared and is carrying through on.

Martin has never made any fuss over the continual rockets being fired by Hamas onto Israeli houses and schools, over 8000 of these rockets have fallen.

Israel is at war with Hamas and it has a right to pursue its enemies as long as this war lasts.

Martin is also a hypocrite because in the Irish national struggle led by Michael Collins the Irish knew they were in a war and they did not hesitate to use war methods against their British enemy.

Martion is a double and a traitorous hypocrite because the Jews in Palestine and in Ireland were in full support of the Irish national struggle. It was a war and prominent Jews gave safe houses to the IRA of Collins who were hiding from the British enemy.

Furthermore the Jewish Briscoe family in Dublin were participating and ready to lay down their lives for Irish nationalism, but they did so as Jews, as Jewish Irishmen, and as supporters of Zionism

This terrible and hateful blow struck by Martin against the Jews of the present world, in their dire hour of need, will go down in history, the history of Irish betrayal of the Jews.

You can see from the following statement just what a weak and conniving bastard Martin is. He does this with no evidence and he nod nod wink wink cowers in behind the equally cowardly British and Australians.

Problem with martin and many of these contemporary Irish…They have no balls!

report starts here

The Government has confirmed it is to ask Israel to withdraw a member of staff at its embassy in Dublin following a report into the use of Irish passport numbers by suspects in the murder of a Hamas official.

The recommendation that the official be expelled arose following the consideration of two reports – one from the Garda and the other from the Department of Foreign Affairs passport service.

Eight fake Irish passports were among a number used by those allegedly responsible for assassinating Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai on January 19th.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said he briefed the Government on the outcome of the investigations this morning. He said investigations had discovered no additional evidence linking the Irish passports to Israel.

“The fact that the forged Irish passports were used by members of the same group who carried the forged British and Australian passports, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that an Israeli government agency was responsible for the misuse and, most likely, the manufacture of the forged Irish passports associated with the murder of Mr Mabhouh.”

The Minister said efforts to enlist the assistance of the Israeli authorities in the investigation of this case had “yielded no response and no denial” of Israeli involvement.

“The misuse of Irish passports by a State with, with which Ireland enjoys friendly, if sometimes frank, bilateral relations is clearly unacceptable and requires a firm response,” he said.

“Accordingly, I have proposed, and the Government has agreed at today’s Cabinet meeting, that by way of protest at its unacceptable action, Israel be requested to withdraw a designated member of staff of its embassy in Dublin. This demand has been conveyed to the Israeli ambassador and I would expect it to be quickly acceded to.”

Mr Martin said that in accordance with normal diplomatic practice, he did not propose to reveal either the name or function of the official whom the Israeli government had been requested to withdraw.

“I want to state clearly that the official concerned is not accused or suspected of any particular wrongdoing. In being obliged to leave their post prematurely, the official concerned is a victim of the actions of the state they represent.”

Mr Martin said the Government had invested heavily in making the Irish passport the respected document which it is internationally and in improving the security of our system so that Irish citizens can travel in safety.

“Any actions which endanger our well earned reputation in this area require determined action to ensure there is no repetition.

“I believe that, by taking decisive action in this regard, the Government is conveying a clear message of protest at what has occurred and our firm expectation that it will not happen again.”

He said the Government condemned the murder of Mr Mabhouh.

“Many allegations have been made against Mr Mabhouh which, if true, would categorise him as a committed terrorist. The Irish Government does not believe that States should fight terror with terror. As a matter of principle, Ireland opposes extra-judicial killings. We believe that States have a duty to operate according to the law and to respect that way of life that terrorists seek to destroy.”

Mr Martin said he very much wanted Ireland and Israel to enjoy productive bilateral relations. “Even more, I want to see Israelis living in peace and prosperity in a state recognised by its neighbours.”

But he said the Government and the “vast majority of the Irish people disagree with certain policies pursued by the Israeli government, particularly in its relations with the occupied Palestinian territories”.

“I will not hesitate to express criticism of such policies where I believe this is warranted and where the policies in question, such as the current blockade of Gaza, are inimical to the achievement of a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a comprehensive overall settlement in the Middle East.”

In a statement, the Israeli embassy said the ambassador Dr Zion Evrony was invited this morning to a meeting with David Cooney, secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

“At this meeting, Ambassador Evrony was informed of the decision of the Irish government. Israel regrets this decision.

“We believe that it does not reflect the overall positive relations which exist between Ireland and Israel.”


15 June 2010

Caroline Glick has a new piece on Jerusalem Post

We will discuss the implications of this in further posts. They are profound and call for revolutionary action to defend Israel and the Jews, surely now heading towards Holocaust at the hands of Islam and Islam supported by the West

[begin Glick article here]

with Israel or just give in.


By backing the terrorist group against Israel, western countries are backing Hamas against Fatah and Islamist states against ME moderates.

Since the navy’s May 31 takeover of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers have deliberated around the clock about how to contend with the US-led international stampede against Israel. But their ultimate decision to form an investigatory committee led by a retired Supreme Court justice and overseen by foreign observers indicates that they failed to recognize the nature of the international campaign facing us today.

Led by US President Barack Obama, the West has cast its lot with Hamas. It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama’s friends, former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fund-raiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is James Abourezk, a former US senator from South Dakota.

All of these people have open lines of communication not only to the Obama White House, but to Obama himself.

Obama has made his sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood clear several times since entering office. The Muslim Brotherhood’s progeny include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last June, Obama infuriated the Egyptian government when he insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo. His administration’s decision to deport Hamas deserter and Israeli counterterror operative Mosab Hassan Yousef to the Palestinian Authority where he will be killed is the latest sign of its support for radical Islam.

Given Obama’s attitude toward jihadists and the radical leftists who support them, his decision to support Hamas against Israel makes sense. What is alarming however is how leaders of the free world are now all siding with Hamas. That support has become ever more apparent since the Mossad’s alleged killing of Hamas terror master Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at his hotel in Dubai in January.

In the aftermath of Mabhouh’s death, both Britain and Australia joined the Dubai-initiated bandwagon in striking out against Israel. Israel considers both countries allies, or at least friendly and has close intelligence ties with both. Yet despite their close ties, Australia and Britain expelled Israeli diplomats who supposedly had either a hand in the alleged operation or who work for the Mossad.

It should be noted that neither country takes steps against outspoken terror supporters who call for Israel to be destroyed and call for the murder of individual Israelis.

For instance, in an interview last month with The Australian, Ali Kazak, the former PLO ambassador to Australia, effectively solicited the murder of The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Kazak told the newspaper, “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor.”

Allowing that many Palestinians have been murdered for such accusations, Kazak excused those extrajudicial murders saying, “Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”

Not only did Australia not expel Kazak or open a criminal investigation against him, as a consequence of his smear campaign against Abu Toameh, several Australian government officials cancelled their scheduled meetings with him.

AND OF course, this week we have the actions of Germany and Poland. They are considered Israel’s best friends in Europe, and yet acting on a German arrest warrant, Poland has arrested a suspected Mossad officer named Uri Brodsky for his alleged involvement in the alleged Mossad operation against Mabhouh. Israel is now caught in a diplomatic disaster zone where its two closest allies – who again are only too happy to receive regular intelligence updates from the Mossad – are siding with Hamas against it.

And then of course we have the EU’s call for Israel to cancel its lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. That is, the official position of the EU is that an Iranian proxy terrorist organization should be allowed to gain control over a Mediterranean port and through it, provide Iran with yet another venue from which it can launch attacks against Europe.

For their part, the Sunni Arabs are forced to go along with this. The Egyptian regime considers the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Gaza a threat to its very survival and has been assiduously sealing its border with Gaza for some time. And yet, unable to be more anti-Hamas than the US, Australia and Europe, Mubarak is opening the border. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa’s unprecedented visit to Gaza this week should be seen as a last ditch attempt by Egypt to convince Hamas to unify its ranks with Fatah. Predictably, the ascendant Hamas refused his entreaties.

As for Fatah, it is hard not to feel sorry for its leader Mahmoud Abbas these days. In what was supposed to be a triumphant visit to the White House, Abbas was forced to smile last week as Obama announced the US will provide $450 million in aid to his sworn enemies who three years ago ran him and his Fatah henchmen out of Gaza.

So too, Abbas is forced to cheer as Obama pressures Israel to give Hamas an outlet to the sea. This will render it impossible for Fatah to ever unseat Hamas either by force or at the ballot box. Hamas’s international clout demonstrates to the Palestinians that jihad pays.

THERE ARE three plausible explanations for the West’s decision to back Hamas. All of them say something deeply disturbing about the state of the world. The first plausible explanation is that the Americans and the rest of the West are simply naïve. They believe that by backing Hamas, they are advancing the cause of Middle East peace.

If this is in fact what the likes of Obama and his European and Australian counterparts think, apparently no one in the West is thinking very hard. The fact is that by backing Hamas against Israel, they are backing Hamas against Fatah and they are backing Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hamas and Hizbullah against Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They are backing the most radical actors in the region – and arguably in the world – against states and regimes they have a shared strategic interest in strengthening.

There is absolutely no way this behavior advances the cause of peace.

The second plausible explanation is that the West’s support for Hamas is motivated by hatred of Israel. As Helen Thomas’s recent remarks demonstrated, there is certainly a lot of that going around.

The final plausible explanation for the West’s support for Hamas is that it has been led to believe that by acting as it is, it will buy itself immunity from attack by Hamas and its fellow members of the Iranian axis. As former Italian president Francesco Cossiga first exposed in a letter to Corriere della Serra in August 2008, in the early 1970s Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed a deal with Yasser Arafat that gave the PLO and its affiliated organizations the freedom to operate terror bases in Italy. In exchange the Palestinians agreed to limit their attacks to Jewish and Israeli targets. Italy maintained its allegiance to the deal – and to the PLO against Israel – even when Italian targets were hit.

Cossiga told the newspaper that the August 2, 1980 bombing at the Bologna train station – which Italy blamed on Italian fascists – was actually the work of George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Eighty-five people were murdered in the attack, and still Italy maintained its agreement with the PLO to the point where it prosecuted and imprisoned the wrong people for the worst terrorist attack in its history.

Cossiga alleged that the deal is still in place today and that Italian forces in UNIFIL have expanded the deal to include Hamas’s fellow Iranian proxy Hizbullah. It isn’t much of a stretch to consider the possibility that Italy and the rest of the Western powers have made a similar deal with Hamas. And it is no stretch at all to believe that they will benefit from it as greatly as the Italian railroad passengers in Bologna did.

True, no one has come out and admitted to supporting Hamas. So too, no one has expressed anything by love for Israel and the Jewish people. But the actions of the governments of the West tell a different tale. Without one or more of the explanations above, it is hard to understand their current policies.

Since the flotilla incident, Netanyahu and his ministers have held marathon deliberations on how to respond to US pressure to accept an international inquisition into the IDF’s lawful enforcement of the legal blockade of the Gaza coast. Their deliberations went on at the same time as Netanyahu and his envoys attempted to convince Obama to stop his mad rush to give Hamas an outlet to the sea and deny Israel even the most passive right of self-defense.

It remains to be seen if their decision to form an investigative panel with international “observers” was a wise move or yet another ill-advised concession to an unappeasable administration. What is certain, however, is that it will not end the West’s budding romance with Hamas.

The West’s decision to side with Hamas is devastating. But whatever the reasons for it, it is a fact of life. It is Netanyahu’s duty to swallow this bitter pill and devise a strategy to protect the country from their madness.

Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons


The first rule of strategy
is to keep your opponent busy attending to your agenda so he has no time to advance his own. Unfortunately, Israel’s leaders seem unaware of this rule, while Iran’s rulers triumph in its application.
Over the past few weeks, Israel has devoted itself entirely to the consideration of questions that are, at best, secondary. Questions like how much additional assistance Israel should provide Hamas-controlled Gaza, and how best to fend off or surrender to the international diplomatic lynch mob have dominated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s and his senior ministers’ agendas. Our political leaders – as well as our military commanders and intelligence agencies – have been so busy thinking about these issues that they have effectively forgotten the one issue that they should have been considering.
Israel’s greatest strategic challenge – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – has fallen by the wayside.
In the shadow of our distraction, Iran and its allies operate undisturbed. Indeed, as our leaders have devoted themselves entirely to controlling the damage from the Iranian-supported, Turkish- Hamas flotilla, Iran and its allies have had a terrific past few weeks.
True, Wednesday the UN Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution against Iran for refusing to end its illicit uranium enrichment program. But that Security Council resolution itself is emblematic of Iran’s triumph.
It took a year for US President Barack Obama to decide that he should seek additional sanctions against Iran. It then took him another six months to convince Iran’s allies Russia and China to support the sanctions. In the event, the sanctions that Obama refers to as “the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced,” will have no impact whatsoever on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
They will not empower the Iranian people to overthrow their regime. And they will not cause the Iranian regime to reconsider its nuclear weapons program. They won’t even prevent Russia from supplying Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to protect its nuclear installations from air assault.
THOSE LONG-awaited and utterly worthless sanctions underline the fact that life is terrific these days for Iran’s leaders and their allies. A year ago, the Iranian regime was hanging by a thread. After stealing the presidential elections last June 12, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei required the assistance of all their regime goons to put down the popular revolt against them. Indeed, they needed to import Hizbullah goons from Lebanon to protect themselves and their regime from their own people. European leaders like French President Nicolas Sarkozy were openly supporting the Iranian people as they announced their intention to overthrow the regime.
But then Obama sided with the regime against its domestic, democratic opposition. Intent on giving his appeasement policy a whirl, Obama took several days to express even the mildest support for the Iranian people. In the meantime, his spokesman continued to refer to the regime as the “legitimate” government of Iran.
Obama’s support for Ahmadinejad forced European leaders like Sarkozy to temper their support for the anti-regime activists. Even worse, by keeping the democracy protesters at arm’s length, Obama effectively gave a green light to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to resort to brute force against them. That is, by failing to back the democracy protesters, Obama convinced the regime it could get away with murdering scores of them, and torturing thousands more.
A year on, although the regime’s opponents seethe under the surface, with no leader and no help from the free world, it will take a miracle for them to mount major protests on the one-year anniversary of the stolen elections. It is unimaginable that they will be able to topple the regime before it gets its hands on nuclear weapons.
A year ago Ahmadinejad was afraid to show his face in public. But this week he received a hero’s welcome in Istanbul. He had a bilateral meeting there not only with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
In the past year Iran has deepened its strategic ties with China and Russia. It has developed an open strategic alliance with Turkey. It has expanded its strategic web of alliances in Latin America. Now in addition to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, Iran counts Brazil among its allies.
THEN THERE is Lebanon. Like the regime in Teheran, Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah lost the Lebanese elections last June. And like the regime in Teheran, Hizbullah was able to use force and the threat of force to not only strong-arm its way back into the Lebanese government, but to guarantee itself control over the Lebanese government.
Now in control, with Iranian and Syrian support, Hizbullah has an arsenal of 42,000 missiles with ranges that cover all of Israel.
Then, too, Hizbullah’s diplomatic situation has never been better. This week former US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker called for the US to initiate a policy of diplomatic outreach to the Iranian-controlled illegal terrorist group. Ryan is the second prominent US official, after Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, to call for the US to accept Hizbullah as a legitimate actor in the region.
As for Syria, it too has only benefited from its alliance with Iran. The Obama administration has waived several trade sanctions against Damascus.
As it battles the Senate to confirm its choice for US ambassador to Syria, the administration has become the regime’s champion.
Assuming the Senate drops its opposition, Syria will receive the first US ambassador to Damascus in five years as it defies the International Atomic Energy Agency and openly proliferates nuclear technology. Today Syria is both rebuilding its illicit nuclear reactor at Dar Alzour that Israel reportedly destroyed on Sept. 6, 2007 and building additional nuclear installations.
Luckily for Bashar Assad, the IAEA is too busy trying to coerce Israel into agreeing to international inspections of its legal nuclear installations to pay any attention. Since June 2008, the IAEA has carried out no inspections in Syria.
AND THAT’S the heart of the matter. The main reason that the past year has been such a good one for Iran and its allies is because they have managed to keep Israel so busy fending off attacks that Jerusalem has had no time to weaken them in any way.
It is true that much of the fault here belongs to the US. Since entering office, Obama has demonstrated daily that his first priority in the Middle East is to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. As for Iran, Obama’s moves to date make clear that his goal is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rather, it is to avoid being blamed for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Obama has used Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and vague promises to do something about it – as a means of coercing Israel into making unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.
The problem is that despite overwhelming evidence that Obama is fundamentally not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel’s leaders have played along with him. And in so doing they have lost control over their time and their agenda.
When Obama first came into office, he was committed to three things: appeasing Iran, attacking Israel for constructing homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria, and condemning Israel for refusing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Obama was only partially dissuaded from appeasing Iran when Ahmadinejad rejected his offer to enrich uranium for the mullahs last December. As for his other goals, he coerced Netanyahu into agreeing to support Palestinian statehood last June and coerced him into ending Jewish home building in Judea and Samaria last September.
Ahmadinejad’s rejection of Obama’s outstretched hand forced Obama to launch his halfhearted drive for worthless UN sanctions. But he used this bid to coerce Israel into making still more unreciprocated concessions. After pocketing the prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Obama moved on to Jerusalem.
From there he moved to forcing Israel to accept indirect negotiations with the Palestinians through his hostile envoy George Mitchell. And once he had pocketed that concession, he began pressuring Israel to surrender its purported nuclear arsenal.
Following that, he has moved on to his current position of pressuring Israel to accept a hostile international investigation of the navy’s enforcement of Israel’s lawful blockade of the Gaza coast. He also seeks to weaken Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza and force Israel to accept a massive infusion of US assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
This last Obama action plan was made explicit on Wednesday when the US president announced that his administration would give $400 million in assistance to Gaza, despite the fact that doing so involves providing material aid to an illegal terrorist organization controlled by Iran.
OBAMA’S ACTIONS are clearly disturbing, but as disturbing as they are, they are not Israel’s main problem. Iran’s nuclear program is Israel’s main problem. And Netanyahu, his senior cabinet ministers and the IDF high command should not be devoting their precious time to dealing with Obama and his ever-escalating demands.
To free himself and Israel’s other key decisionmakers to contend with Iran, Netanyahu must outsource the handling of the Palestinian issue, the Obama administration and all the issues arising from both. He must select someone outside active politics to serve as his special envoy for this purpose.
Netanyahu’s envoy’s position should be the mirror image of Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s role. He should be given a suite of fancy offices, several deputies and aides and spokesmen, and a free hand in talking with the Palestinians and the Obama administration until the cows come home.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his senior cabinet ministers and advisers must devote themselves to battling Iran. They must not merely prepare to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
They must prepare the country to weather the Iranian counter-attack that will surely follow.
Those preparations involve not only fortifying Israel’s home front. Netanyahu and his people must prepare a diplomatic and legal offensive against Iran and its allies in the lead-up, and aftermath, of an Israeli strike against Iran.
The most obviously qualified person to fill this vital role is former defense minister Moshe Arens.
Aren has the experience, wisdom and gravitas to handle the job. Bereft of all political ambitions, Arens would in no way pose a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership.
Whoever Netanyahu chooses, he must choose quickly. His failure to bear in mind the first law of strategy places Israel in greater and greater peril with each passing day.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Posted on June 11, 2010