the PLO when driven out of Jordan slunk away with their collective tail between their legs, but when they left Lebanon they did so with flags flying and fingers giving the victory sign. Big difference that needs explaining! The difference was caused by the backing against Israel they were being given by Reagan
Daniel Greenfield is a shrill for US Imperialism which hates the Jews and Greenfield is no friend of the Jewish people no matter what image he throws up. The purpose of Greenfield is to block revolutionary socialism and to present the Jewish people with a certain perspective or ideology.
According to this Greenfield ideology the American Imperialist Globalist enemies of the Jews are the friends of the Jews. As a complement to this perspective or ideology is the thing claimed by Greenfield that if these leftists” were defeated Israel would be home and dry!
In short Greenfield says that American Imperialism is the friend of Israel and it alone is its friend. That is a lie. It is a lie that Daniel Greenfield churns out week after week. Consider the record of the person who is often held up as the friend of Israel – not Clinton or Obama – but Reagan. It is deeply embedded inside the Greenfield circles which cover nearly 100 per cent of Zionism (not quite but nearly) that Reagan was really a good ol’ guy ad a clear friend to the Jews.
But he wasn’t! Reagan was no friend to Israel and no friend to the Jews.
Does that mean that the present so called left are not Antisemitic whores. No I am not saying that. I am far from saying that! In fact I continually say the opposite! The left which includes a wide selection of groups calling themselves all kinds of left sounding names are indeed nothing but Antisemitic whores. But I think the US Imperialist Governments are also Antisemitic whores and they have more power as has their state controlled Media Machines. Perhaps Greenfield’s is part of that Whore Media as well! Indeed I think it is!
Greenfield talks in his latest article how “Leftists” backed the “Arab Spring”. Well myself on http://www.4international.me opposed the Arab Spring from the very first. We saw it as the Gateway through which the Islamist Jihadist would ride to power. They did this in country after country and in every one we backed the sitting dictator against this Arab Spring (Islam Jihad) on one basis and only one basis – these dictators like Ben Ali, Gaghbo, Mubarak, Arafat, Assad, were all secular, at least secular in a relative sense, as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. So to take the Egypt example, for brevity and clarity, we defended Mubarak, opposed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, defended el Sisi, and we still do. I know for a fact that very few groups have such a clear record as this. I am not boasting just pointing out that these positions do actually exist. I consider the positions Greenfield takes up as being not consistent and I could deal with other things in his article. But the main thing I focus on is that Greenfield is a shrill for US Imperialist Power int he world. it is not that everything he says is wrong but that everything he says and does is underpinned by that. This is a serious issue at a time when more and more Jews are seeing that it is necessary to break the ties with US Imperialism, grow closer to the American people, and for the Jewish state to be first and foremost an independent Jewish state.
Consequently I will limit myself to quoting just ONE paragraph from the latest Greenfield article and also provide the url for the reader to view it all:
The left backed the Arab Spring which rewarded the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. Its great regional obsession is statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don’t get their own lefty protest rallies.
This was ALL well covered in the very useful article which Francisco Gil White wrote some time ago. Note in this article that the PLO when driven out of Jordan slunk away with their collective tail between their legs, but when they left Lebanon they did so with flags flying and fingers giving the victory sign. Big difference that needs explaining! The difference was caused by the backing against Israel they were being given by Reagan when they left Lebanon for Tunis.
(start extract from Gil White article here)
1982-1983 [ negative ]
The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis.
Not content with the above, in September 1982, Edgar Bronfman, from his perch as President of the World Jewish Congress, publicly endorsed Ronald Reagan’s plan for Middle East peace. Reagan was using Bronfman as a ‘Jewish diplomat’ to speak for Israel, and American newspapers dutifully carried the headline “Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan.”
But who cares what Bronfman said? He was not a spokesman for the Israeli government. As a matter of fact,
“the [Likud] Israeli government [led by Menachem Begin]…unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative.”
And what was Bronfman endorsing?
“The Camp David peace accords call for an interim, five-year period of autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza during which the final status of the territories is to be negotiated.”
Autonomy leading to final status was code for a peace process leading to a Palestinian state. We have already seen that the US was quite keen to have Yasser Arafat and the PLO terrorists run such a state (see 1977 section). Thus, Reagan’s plan to create a Palestinian state, which Bronfman endorsed, was another American attack on Israel.
Even as US President Ronald Reagan was pressing for a Palestinian state run by the PLO, these terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians from their bases in Lebanon. Above we noted that in 1970 Jordan’s King Hussein had militarily expelled the PLO terrorists from his country.
“Thereafter the PLO shifted its bases to Lebanon and continued its attacks on Israel. The PLO’s relations with the Lebanese were tumultuous, and the organization soon became embroiled in Lebanon’s sectarian disputes and contributed to that country’s eventual slide into civil war.”
This was a repeat of the problems the PLO had earlier caused in Jordan.
Because the PLO was murdering Israeli civilians, Israel invaded Lebanon, and launched a
“campaign that Israel said would wipe out the PLO as a political and military force and open the way for true peace in the Middle East.”
The Israelis very nearly did just that. They failed, however. But not for lack of trying. Rather, what happened is that as Israeli troops got ready to deliver a knockout blow to the PLO, the US intervened to save them. The Washington Post noted the contrast between the PLO’s earlier exit from Jordan, and from Lebanon:
“From Amman [Jordan], the PLO troops left unheralded, in ridicule. From Beirut [Lebanon], they left in a compromise negotiated by the United States, waving their Kalashnikov rifles. Arafat left not in the middle of the night but with an emotional dockside sendoff from the Lebanese prime minister, a French Navy escort and U.S. air cover.”
But why did the US do this? Because the PLO is the US’s pet, and the US meant to use it again as an attack dog (as we shall see). If any further evidence for this ‘master-pet’ relationship were needed, consider that, in Lebanon, the US had been using the PLO as its *guard* dog:
“The Lebanese occupation by Israel caused the Palestinians to have to leave Lebanon eventually…They had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut…There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.” — Vincent Cannistraro, senior intelligence official.
It’s a love affair!
A bit later, a rival Lebanese faction assassinated Bashir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese phalangists. Two days after that, in the resulting chaos, a massacre was committed in Sabra and Shatila, blamed on these now-headless phalangists. Despite the fact that nobody was blaming Israeli soldiers, Ronald Reagan (who was then using the Contra terrorists to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua) launched a ferocious diplomatic attack against Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and his Likud government, claiming Israel was responsible for this. Edgar Bronfman Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress, again provided cover for Reagan by supporting this attack wholeheartedly.
Before closing this section, it is important to note that despite the US rescue of the PLO, Arafat’s eviction from Beirut was a severe blow that essentially defeated the organization. By 1983, the Christian Science Monitor was writing as follows:
“The Palestine Liberation Organization continues, meanwhile, a loss of regional influence that began with Israel’s summer 1982 invasion of Lebanon. As part of the initial cease-fire, Mr. Arafat and the majority of Palestinian guerrillas abandoned their base in Beirut. Since then, a hard-line faction has challenged Arafat’s PLO leadership. Now Arafat’s back is literally against the sea, and his departure from [the northern Lebanese city of] Tripoli seems only a matter of time.”[78a]
Sure enough, two months later, the New York Times reported that:
“Mr. Arafat, who is believed to be in Tunis, is scheduled to meet Monday with Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Shafik al-Wazzan, to discuss his organization’s terms for withdrawing the rest of its guerrilla forces from [Tripoli,] Lebanon.”[78b]
The US did what it could to make sure that the remaining PLO troops would get out of Lebanon safely:
“White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the Reagan administration wished for the ‘unhampered’ withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization troops loyal to Arafat.”[78c]
And the Reagan administration became quite strident about this, in fact.
“The United States said today that it had told Israel that it ‘hopes and expects’ the Shamir Government will halt its military actions around Tripoli and allow Yasir Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization fighters to be evacuated from the city.
…officials said privately that Washington was losing patience with the Israeli tactics that have delayed Mr. Arafat’s withdrawal.”[78d]
At the time, as the same New York Times article explains, President Ronald Reagan’s point man on the Middle East was one Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense in George Bush Jr.’s administration.
“Today, in what State Department officials said was an effort to demonstrate to the Arabs the American desire for good relations with them as well as the Israelis, Donald Rumsfeld, the special Middle East envoy, arrived in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders.
Mr. Rumsfeld is the highest ranking American to visit Iraq since the Reagan Administration took office in 1980.”
What has been reviewed for the years 1982-83 does not suggest in the least that the Reagan administration really intended to have good relations with the Israelis. To confirm that, it suffices to read on and find out what happened in 1985.
From its new base in Tunis, the defeated PLO would find it very difficult to attack Israel, which is why it resorted to such high jinks as taking hostage the Italian ship Achille Lauro in 1985 (see below). The US would therefore make sure to revive the PLO, and eventually bring it to power in the West Bank, where it could once again easily kill innocent Israeli civilians.
(end extract from Gil White article to be found on http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982)