Zionist Conspiracy

1. Let's Vote for Independence!!

By Steven Plaut

As you know, much of the world is getting ready to recognize a "state"
for "Palestinians" in coming days. The US may veto the vote in the
Security Council to set up "Palestine" in Israeli lands, and then
again maybe it will not veto it. Other countries are going ahead with
plans to vote for "Palestine" in the General Assembly, to grant
"Palestine" embassy space, to grant it formal recognition, and so on.

After years of paying lip service to the righteous need for granting
"Palestinians" a state, Netanyahu and his cowardly crew are scratching
their heads about what to do and how to stop all this. The best Bibi
has come up with is a plan to give a speech in that building on the
East River near 42nd street.

I have a better idea. My suggestion is this.

The "Palestinian" movement is nothing more than a local separatist
movement, composed of Arabs seeking to gain separatist independence.
Arabs already have 22 states. Since almost all countries in the
world have their OWN domestic separatist movements, the only
reasonable response by Israel to votes by other countries in favor of
the "Palestinian" separatist movement should be met by a decision by
Israel to recognize the separatist movements in THOSE countries, to
grant them embassy space and official diplomatic recognition.

Here are some examples:

If France votes for a "Palestinian state," as it is expected to do,
Israel must immediately grant diplomatic status and recognition to the
National Front for the Liberation of Corsica, to the separatist
Savoyard League and the Nissa Rebela, to the separatist Armée
Révolutionnaire Bretonne and Front de Libération de la Bretagne, and
to the French Basque separatists.

If Spain votes for a "Palestinian state," as it is expected to do,
Israel must immediately grant diplomatic status and recognition to the
ETA and other Basques separatists, to the Catalan separatists, as well
as to the separatist movements in Castille, Leon, Andalusia,
Cantabria, Galicia, Aragon, and Asturias.

If Belgium votes for a "Palestinian state," as it is expected to do,
Israel must immediately grant diplomatic status and recognition to
both the Flemish and Walloon separatist movements.

If Holland votes for a "Palestinian state," as it is expected to do,
Israel must immediately grant diplomatic status and recognition to the
Frisian separatist movement.

Turkey of course is leading the campaign for "Palestine," which is why
Israel should recognize the Armenian, Kurdish, Arab, and other ethnic
nationalist movements inside Turkey. And let's hear nothing about
Armenians already having their own state outside the Turkish borders.

The UK will probably vote against it, but just in case it votes in
favor, Israel should then recognize the separatist movements of
Cornwall, Guernsey, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight,
Northumberland, Wessex, Yorkshire, and of course also the independence
of Wales, Scotland and Ulster.

Russia plans to vote for "Palestinian independence." Israel should
respond by recognizing all of the separatist movements within Russia,
a full list of which is much too long to reproduce here. If Italy
votes for "Palestine," there are so many regional independence and
separatist movements inside Italy that could be recognized that space
does not allow their complete listing.

The Sami independence movements in Norway, Sweden and Finland should
be recognized at once. Ditto for the Faroes Islands independence
movement in Denmark. If Switzerland votes in favor, Israel should
recognize the Jura regional separatist movement.

The above list is just for European countries. Most of South America
has ALREADY recognized "Palestine," even before any UN vote. If
Argentina and or Chile votes in favor, Israel needs to recognize the
Mapuche separatists in those countries. If Bolivia votes in favor,
the Santa Cruz separatists there should be recognized. If Brazil
votes in favor, Israel should recognize the separatist movements in
Rio Grande do Sul. Venezuela will certainly vote in favor, which is
why Israel must recognize the independence of Zulia and Maracaibo.
Mexico is certain to vote in favor, which is why the Zapatista
movement in Chiapas needs a nice embassy in Israel.

Moslem states have their own domestic separatist movements and these
are deserving of special support and recognition by Israel. In Iran,
aside from the obvious Kurdish separatists, there are Assyrian,
Baluchi, Azeri, and Arab regional separatist movements, all in need of
an Embassy. (And let's hear no nonsense about how Iranian Arabs have
no right to independence because Arabs already have 22 states! Azeris
already have a state, you say? Since when does THAT matter??) Syria
of course also has Kurdish and Assyrian separatists. Pakistan has
Balochistan, Gilgit Baltistan, and Singh separatist movements.
Indonesia has oodles of separatists.

The number of separatist movements in other parts of the world is so
that Israel would have to build an entire new diplomatic city east of
Ariel just to house all the embassies it needs to establish for the
separatist movements in countries voting for "Palestinian statehood."

2. From the New Republic

Why Won't Obama List Israelis Among the

Victims of Terrorism?

Martin Peretz

September 8, 2011

I wish it would be historically possible—that is, historically
honest—for Israel to be omitted from the long list of target countries
that have been the victims of terrorism. Alas, it is not. But
President Obama has a habit of making such lists, and he always fails
to include Israel (or anyplace within its borders) as a target of this
distinctive and most vicious form of warfare.
Still, the fact is that, as early as the 1970s, Palestinian
liberationists had begun to perfect the careful tactics of random
battle against Israelis. If not precisely Israelis, then some other
Jews. Why not? It's at least a back-handed admission of the fact of
Jewish peoplehood. If not blowing up a bus in the Negev, then a
shoot-out at the El Al counter at Leonardo da Vinci Airport in Rome. A
family massacre in the Galilee, a mass murder of Olympic athletes in
Munich, two high-toll bombings in Buenos Aires. In a Jerusalem
Yeshiva, on a Tel Aviv thoroughfare. And the liquidation of five
members of a family, yes, a family that lived in a settlement. But its
three-month-old didn't really know that. Knife across the neck anyway.
The omission is surely deliberate. Here's the latest one, linking 9/11
to terror elsewhere, from The New York Times, August 29, 2011:

As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries who perished in
the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation
around the world. … We honor and celebrate the resilience of
individuals, families, and communities on every continent, whether in
New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or
London.

And here on July 24, 2008 in Berlin:

We can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks
that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in
Washington and New York.

All of these locations suffered the attacks of barbarians, and with
these attacks thousands upon thousands of victims. And many more
thousands with the victimhood of being robbed of those they loved and
of those for whom they cared. Nobody has yet estimated the count of
people affected by this epidemic. I do not wonder why. It is not that
such an estimate, close to accurate, cannot be undertaken and honestly
completed.
If truth be told, President Obama has a direct interest in keeping
these statistics fudged. For, aside from Belfast, every location he
mentions is a place where Muslim extremists have shed blood—and shed
the blood of innocents, shed the blood of those who do not even know
how to ask why they have been targeted, if indeed they have been
specifically or personally targeted which most of them have not been.
In fact, none of them have been. They are innocents in a crowd. But
not according to their killers. They are guilty by being.
This is not the president's narrative. Apparently and actually, he has
no narrative. But he owes us a narrative, his narrative. After all,
our soldiers are being killed and they are also killing. And innocents
are being killed daily by adversary forces Obama will not name or
characterize or define. Who does he really think we are fighting? The
Bahai, maybe? Opus Dei? The Lubavitchers? If Obama does not think that
we are besieged by several strands of Islam, what explanation has he
for the wave of terrorism that has taken place in recent decades?
P.S. I've made an observation about Obama's omission of Israel in
another list of his once before. In my ex-blog, The Spine, I observed
last January that in the president's litany of countries that aided
Haiti in its terrible need and despair he'd omitted Israel. Given the
depth of Israel's rescue work, it cannot have been an oversight. So
was it Obama himself who flinched when he saw the troublesome
country's name in the text prepared by his staff? Or did his staff not
name Israel in the first place? There's a story to be told about his
speechwriters. And it might just be that they know his prejudices.
P.P.S. Maybe you are too young to recall the ghastly Munich Massacre,
which took place 39 years ago this week. But I remember everything I
saw on ABC television from the very moment that a Cape Cod neighbor
summoned me to see "a pogrom going on in Munich." Already then, when
Palestinian terror was still in the blush of youth, so to speak, there
were respectable people apologizing for it. Peter Jennings sticks in
my memory most of all because his excuse for the terrorists was that
history had treated their people badly, the excuse that every
terrorist sympathizer gives. (After 9/11, Jennings pasted together a
public broadcasting program for teenagers showing how kind Muslims are
to women.)
Anyway, here is an account of this great day in Palestinian terror,
perhaps its greatest day, all but forgotten. So this is a reminder by
the careful and honest historian Mitchell Bard.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

3. Leibler on the "New Israel" Fund

The two faces of the New Israel Fund
by Isi Leibler
September 15, 2011
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=3461

It is a somber reflection on the naivety of well-intended Jewish
philanthropists that they continue donating vast amounts of money to
Israel's largest NGO, the New Israel Fund (NIF). They do so despite
repeated documented exposures demonstrating that this body is
sponsoring anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian and post- Zionist
organizations, committed to undermining the Jewish state and promoting
the narrative of the Palestinians as victims and Israelis as
oppressors.
Many of the donors are liberal Jews genuinely committed to Israel who
blindly accept at face value statements from NIF officials who
obfuscate the truth.
Recently, yet another bombshell discrediting this organization was
revealed by Wikileaks. A confidential cable quoted a conversation
between officials at the Tel Aviv US embassy and NIF associate
director Hedva Radanovitz, who until last year controlled the NIF
distribution of grants to 350 NGOs totaling $18 million per annum. She
told embassy personnel that "she believed that in 100 years, Israel
would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of the Jewish state
would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more
democratic."
Radanovitz was in fact, rationalizing why the NIF has and continues to
provide millions of dollars to groups supporting the destruction of
Israel as a Jewish state.
In response to media coverage of these bizarre remarks, NIF CEO Daniel
Sokatch stated that Radanovitz was at the time "not optimistic about
Israeli support for human rights and democracy" and that her views
were not supported by his organization.
He also stressed that she was now no longer employed by the NIF.
However, Sokatch and other NIF leaders failed to explain why many
other senior NIF officers share an ideological view of Israel as a
Jewish state which most Israelis would bitterly oppose.
When communicating to the public, NIF spokesmen stress that whilst
being "a big tent organization" they unquestionably support Israel as
a democratic Jewish state and promote freedom, justice and equality
for all citizens. They purport to be opposed to anti-Israeli "lawfare"
and BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions).
They continuously dismiss critics as being "extreme right wing" and
accuse them of McCarthyism.
SINCE ITS inception in 1979, NIF has dispersed more than $200 million
to more than 800 Israeli organizations.
The majority of the recipients are indeed worthy institutions engaged
in social welfare and developmental projects that all Israelis would
endorse.
When NIF spokesmen address the public, they speak exclusively of the
bona fide social organizations they fund. They fail to disclose that
they are also providing vast funds to organizations that by no stretch
of the imagination could qualify for inclusion in that category. Even
after their recent adamant assurance to the public and donors that
organizations opposed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state
would no longer be sponsored, last year they still directed over a
quarter of their funding ($4.3 million) to groups engaged in
delegitimization and other forms of anti-Israeli activity.
Here are a few examples of NIF allotments last year to organizations
for political advocacy that are deeply engaged in anti-Israeli
campaigns.
Nearly $500,000 was provided to Adalah, a group which contributed to
and campaigned for the Goldstone report, urged foreign governments to
"reevaluate their relationship with Israel," described Israel as "a
colonial enterprise promoting apartheid," called for implementing the
Palestinian right of return to Israel, provided affidavits to Spanish
courts in order to charge Israeli officials with war crimes, and
defended Hizbullah spy Amir Makhoul as a "human rights defender." It
would surely be difficult to visualize any Zionist or remotely
pro-Israeli body providing funds to an organization committed to such
objectives.
Mada al-Carmel, another recipient of NIF funds, engages in
anti-Israeli agitation and openly repudiates the legitimacy of the
Jewish state.
NIF continued to fund the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP), a leader
of the campaign expressly promoting global "boycott, divestment and
sanctions against Israel." CWP also organizes events for Israel
apartheid week.
In 2010, NIF tripled the funding for "Breaking the Silence," another
organization which paved the way for the Goldstone report by making
unsubstantiated claims of war crimes by the IDF. During the Goldstone
committee inquiry "Breaking the Silence," in conjunction with B'tselem
and other NIF-funded NGOs, accused Israel of war crimes and provided
"evidence" to the Goldstone Commission to substantiate their biased
and defamatory report.
The sordidness of these virulently anti-Israeli, NIF-funded NGOs is
heightened by the fact that many are primarily funded by foreign
foundations, in particular European governments, promoting campaigns
against Israel and engaged in bolstering far Left Israeli fringe
groups. Tens of millions of euros are allegedly provided to such
groups by overseas governments suggesting that the are not indigenous
to Israeli society. One could not visualize any European state
tolerating such interference in its domestic affairs by foreign
countries or organizations seeking to subvert the democratically
elected government under the cloak of promoting human rights.
INDEED, WITHOUT the perseverance and determined investigative analysis
of Professor Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor, the public would be
totally unaware that such vast sums are provided to anti-Israeli
organizations.
Steinberg has also been instrumental in promoting Knesset legislation
which now requires NGOs to be transparent and disclose their sources
of foreign funding, based on the model of the US Foreign Agent
Registration ACT (FARA). This requirement will enable Israelis to
appreciate the extent of foreign initiatives designed to fund
anti-government "political activity."
NIF is a public charity and should thus be obliged to introduce
greater transparency and implement accountability with checks and
balances. Although we are told that Radanovitz is no longer employed
by the NIF, we know nothing about her replacement, or whether the
numerous organizations still promoting the dismemberment of Israel as
a Jewish state last year have been excluded from 2011 grants. NIF
should be obliged to publish this information immediately.
Clearly, in these difficult times there is a need for drastic change
in the personnel managing this organization and an end to the secrecy
under which they operate in order to ensure that funds raised for the
welfare of Israel are not diverted to organizations committed to
undermining the Jewish state.
ileibler@netvision.net.il