The U.S. Chutzpah vs Israeli Settlements

Jerusalem Issue Brief

Institute for Contemporary Affairs
founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 9, No. 2 9 June 2009

U.S. Policy on Israeli Settlements

by Dore Gold

The Obama administration's tough, confrontational rhetoric on Israeli settlements raises a number of specific questions: Were Israeli settlements a violation of international law? Were Israeli settlements a violation of agreements and an obstacle to further progress in any future peace talks? Did the administration envision Israel withdrawing completely to the 1967 lines or did it accept the idea that Israel would retain part of the territories for defensible borders?

Many observers are surprised to learn that settlement activity was not defined as a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords or their subsequent implementation agreements. If the U.S. is now seeking to constrain Israeli settlement activity, it is essentially trying to obtain additional Israeli concessions that were not formally required according to Israel's legal obligations under the Oslo Accords.

President Bush's deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, wrote in the Washington Post on April 8, 2009, that the U.S. and Israel negotiated specific guidelines for settlement activity, whereby "settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity." If the U.S. is concerned that Israel might diminish the territory that the Palestinians will receive in the future, then the Obama team could continue with the quiet guidelines followed by the Bush administration and the Sharon government.
Given the fact that the amount of territory taken up by the built-up areas of all the settlements in the West Bank is estimated to be 1.7 percent of the territory, the marginal increase in territory that might be affected by natural growth is infinitesimal. Moreover, since Israel unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the argument that a settler presence will undermine a future territorial compromise has lost much of its previous force.

The U.S. and Israel need to reach a new understanding on the settlements question. Legally and diplomatically, settlements do not represent a problem that can possibly justify putting at risk the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might be that the present tension in U.S.-Israeli relations is not over settlements, but rather over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that the Obama administration envisions.
Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the April 2004 Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.

THE WITCH ATTACKS ISRAEL - SO WHAT ELSE DID YOU EXPECT?

Blogmaster: How easy it has always been for Clinton to criticize Israel while embracing whatever palestinian leader comes along. It is perfectly desirable in Clinton's view, to demolish Jewish homes and destroy Jewish towns who she says are "Illegal". When it comes to "Illegal" arab homes, well...that is a completely separate issue. What hypocritical drivel. We should not be surprised by any anti-Israel comment or action taken by Clinton or the U.S. State Department - just remember who is pulling her strings "Osama Hussein Obama":

Clinton Criticizes Israel's Eviction, Demolition Plans

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 5, 2009;

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized the Israeli government on Wednesday for its plans to demolish dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, calling the actions "unhelpful" and a violation of international obligations.

Clinton made the rare public complaint about Israeli actions in response to a question at a news conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Israel's plans to destroy homes in Arab East Jerusalem, which Palestinians consider the capital of a future Palestinian state, have angered Palestinians.

The Jerusalem municipal government in recent weeks began planning to evict 1,500 residents and raze 88 homes in an area Israel has designated as a national park, on top of other demolition plans for the Silwan neighborhood. Israel says the houses were built without permits, but Palestinians say that permits are impossible to obtain and that many of the homes were built before Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel's subsequent annexation of East Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized.

"It is a matter of deep concern to those who are directly affected, but the ramifications go far beyond the individuals and families that have received the notices," Clinton said. "It will be taken up with the Israeli government.'

A visibly angry Abbas denounced the demolition plans, saying, "It is a clear message to us that whoever is undertaking these measures does not want peace."

During her three-day swing through the Middle East, Clinton generally had stepped gingerly in public when addressing sources of friction with Israel, such as the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. When queried about settlement activity by reporters, she tended to avoid answering and sometimes appeared to abstain from using the word "settlements," in favor of "that issue."

Palestinian officials said they view settlement activity as a key measure of whether the Obama administration will be able to influence the incoming Israeli government and push peace negotiations forward. Although upbeat about Clinton's comments, they were skeptical that -- in the end -- the planned demolitions in Silwan would be stopped, or other planned developments slowed or scaled back.

"We are happy, of course. . . . East Jerusalem has been ignored during Bush's time. We hope that will change," said Jawad Siyam, head of a Palestinian group opposed to the Silwan demolitions.
After Clinton's meetings with top Israeli politicians Tuesday, State Department officials refused to discuss whether she had privately raised concerns that Israel's tight control over border crossings in Gaza was thwarting humanitarian relief to the coastal strip devastated by a recent 22-day Israeli assault against the militant group Hamas. Only after the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday that Clinton had pressed the point, saying Israeli policy may be doing more harm than good, did she say she had discussed it.

Clinton's willingness to criticize Israel over the East Jerusalem plans -- on her first trip as secretary of state -- "is significant, but it is not enough," said Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian politician. "It has to be a strong stand. . . . They still support a two-state solution, but the window's closing."

Indeed, for much of her visit, Clinton appeared to echo the former U.S. administration's approach, denouncing Hamas, which Israel and the United States consider a terrorist organization, and hailing the Palestinian Authority "as the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people." Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006.
The Palestinian newspaper al-Quds dubbed Clinton "Condoleezza Clinton," a biting reference to her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

Speaking to reporters as she flew to Brussels for talks with European and NATO officials, Clinton stressed that she is deeply committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as Israel's remaining disputes with its neighbors. She said that at first the Obama administration, much like the Bush administration, would play "a coordinating and facilitating role" in an effort to restart talks. But she suggested that the U.S. role could become much greater if talks progress.
"As it goes forward, many of us will be expressing those opinions and presenting positions for the parties to consider," she said.

Throughout Wednesday, Clinton heaped praise on Abbas, a U.S. favorite whose approval rating appears to be sagging as elections approach next year.

Clinton, meeting with high school students in Ramallah, said that she was impressed by a presentation by Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, at an international donors conference for Gaza held this week. "It was one of the best I've ever seen," she said.

Correspondent Howard Schneider in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION = UNIVERSAL ANTI-SEMITISM

The Jerusalem Viewpoints series is published by the Institute for Contemporary Affairs,
founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Jerusalem Viewpoints
No. 570 March-April 2009


Averting Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction

Irit Kohn


Right at the outset of Israel's recent operation in Gaza, French pro-Palestinian organizations filed a lawsuit against the Israeli president, foreign minister and defense minister. Turkish prosecutors said in February 2009 that they were investigating whether Israeli leaders should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity over Israel's offensive in Gaza, after Mazlum-Der, an Islamic-oriented human rights organization, filed an official complaint in Turkey. At the same time, a Spanish judge is currently investigating the role of Israeli soldiers and security officials in a bombing in Gaza in 2002 in which a top Hamas suicide bombing planner, Salah Shehada, and 14 other people were killed.
Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to legislate, adjudicate, and punish any individual for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide committed outside its borders, even when those crimes were not committed against that country or its citizens, and even if the accused is not its citizen. The idea is that anyone who commits such atrocious, internationally condemned crimes will not be able to find shelter or hide from judgment anywhere on the globe.

Human rights organizations all over the world have been instrumental in the implementation of universal jurisdiction. This has contributed to the entry of politics into the universal jurisdiction process, as may be seen in many actions brought by NGOs that are supported financially by special interest groups or even states for the benefit of their own agendas. In 2005, Israeli Brig.-Gen. Doron Almog was warned not to leave his plane at Heathrow Airport in London after a UK court issued a warrant for his detention.
It is important to remember that universal jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court are applied when a country does not or cannot act to prosecute. Yet Israel is a democracy with a well-developed judicial system and does not need external intervention to conduct any investigation.

In fact, the Israeli military police reported that between 2000 and 2007, Israel's military judicial system conducted 272 investigations of illegal firing of weapons, with 31 indictments and 17 convictions; 330 investigations of property damage, with 36 indictments and 36 convictions; 475 investigations of violence, with 37 indictments and 34 convictions; and 128 investigations of crimes in the Palestinian areas, with 20 indictments and 18 convictions. The case of Salah Shehada, mentioned above, has already been reviewed thoroughly by Israel's Supreme Court, which is widely respected in the international legal community. What would a Spanish court have to add?

Dr. Henry Kissinger wrote that we are witnessing an unprecedented movement to turn international politics into legal proceedings. International law does not require that the prosecuting country be neutral or politically impartial in order to exercise its jurisdiction in a given case. The purpose for which universal jurisdiction was created may be a worthy and noble one. However, its current execution is problematic, to say the least.


Referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC)

A few days after the outset of Israel's three-week operation in Gaza that ended on January 18, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by several French pro-Palestinian organizations against the Israeli president, foreign minister and defense minister. The Rome Statute, the founding document of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, was cited as the legal basis for the suit.

The organizations demanded that France, which presided over the UN Security Council at the time of the filing, initiate a discussion of the suit at the council, hoping for a Security Council resolution referring the case to the International Criminal Court.

Yet the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction only over nationals of states that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute. Israel has not ratified the statute, and its citizens are therefore not subject to it. Yet Article 13(b) of the court's statute establishes the court's jurisdiction over cases referred to it by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. This article was the legal foundation for the court's authority over crimes committed in Sudanese Darfur. In that case, all the members of the Security Council voted in favor of referring the case to the court, including the United States, which is also not a party to the Rome Statute.

The International Criminal Court began operating in July 2002. Since its inception, it constitutes a permanent tribunal, with supplementary authority to the states' authority to prosecute individuals for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Another crime mentioned in its mandate, whose definition is still under deliberation, is that of "aggression."

Since it was impossible to reach an agreement about the issue of terrorism, that subject is not within the court's purview. Many countries and organizations view the use of terror in a war of self-determination to be a legitimate act of war.

The need to create an International Criminal Court was recognized in the wake of the Second World War and the Jewish Holocaust in Europe. Following the ad hoc tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo, the Jewish people and the State of Israel, as part of the international community, had recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with the recurrent phenomenon of genocide and other such serious crimes.

Israel was very active in the preparatory committee of the International Criminal Court. The former Israeli Attorney General, Judge Eli Rubinstein, spoke at a conference in Rome where he stated that Israel was strongly in favor of trying war criminals responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity. However, Rubinstein added, the inclusion of political bodies into the decision-making process was extremely problematic, and since Israel is a victim of ongoing terror assaults, it hoped that the international community would recognize terror as an international crime and concentrate on practical and effective methods for cooperation designed to bring international terrorists to justice. To this day, the court has yet to institute such measures.

Israel's Problem with the ICC

What happened? Why has Israel refrained from ratifying the statute? One article of the statue, which consolidated the politicization process of the court, is the primary cause for Israel's decision: the article that deals with the transfer of populations.

Article 8(b) 8, the section defining war crimes in the Rome Statute, discusses: "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory."

This article was copied almost word for word from the 1977 First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The article clearly emphasizes forced transfers of populations. Its intentions are even clearer when we remember it was drafted in response to the forced relocation of populations in Europe during the Second World War (e.g., the transfer of Germans into former Czechoslovakia).

In the Rome Statute this article expanded ad absurdum the Nazis' forced repopulation program, which was reasonably defined as a war crime under the Geneva Convention. The statute now defined any voluntary movement of people, either directly or indirectly, by any means, as a similar crime under the Rome Statute. But what is the connection between this distortion and the original intent of the Rome Statute, which was to establish a court to deal with horrible and intolerable trespasses against humanity? Here the intent was to have Israeli settlements in the West Bank internationally acknowledged as a most serious crime which should therefore be subject to the court.

Let us recall that, in general, violations of international law are not, ipso facto, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. There are many violations of international law which are not considered tantamount to these crimes. Furthermore, expanding the definition of "population transfers" in the Rome Statute even beyond that of the First Protocol of the Geneva Convention, while creating a legal construct specific to the issue of the Israeli settlements, seriously diminishes the statute on which the court was founded. Israeli sources claim that the phrasing of this article, inspired and influenced by Arab nations, specifically targets the State of Israel, and therefore is wholly unrelated in severity and content to the other flagrant acts designated by the statute as war crimes.

It is interesting to note that neither the ad-hoc tribunals for Rwanda nor Yugoslavia saw fit to expand the definition in their constituting documents beyond that of the Fourth Geneva Convention, wherein only the deportation or illegal transfer of protected persons are considered to be serious violations of the convention.

At the end of the day, the introduction of this article into the Rome Statute and the connection between the ICC and the UN left Israel no choice but to refrain from joining the statute, and consequently the ICC has no jurisdiction over it or its citizens.

The International Criminal Court isn't the only avenue for the prosecution of these crimes. There have been special UN tribunals in which individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity have been prosecuted. These include the courts established by the UN Security Council to address the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Cambodia. Recently, a court was established in Lebanon with regard to the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri.

Individual States Seek to Exercise Universal Jurisdiction

Yet another way to prosecute suspects for heinous violations of international law may be found in certain states that have adopted laws involving "universal jurisdiction." As noted, the Rome Statute established the primary commitment of states to exercise their jurisdiction and prosecute individuals suspected of responsibility for such crimes in national courts. The emphasis here is on a state's responsibility to bring to justice anyone responsible for such crimes, via adjusted legislation, expanded universal jurisdiction, and improved international cooperation.

Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to legislate, adjudicate, and punish any individual for crimes committed outside its borders, even when those crimes were not committed against that country or its citizens, and even if the accused is not its citizen. The idea is that anyone who commits such atrocious, internationally condemned crimes will not be able to find shelter or hide from judgment anywhere on the globe.

The definition of these crimes is the result of historical processes. The constituting treaty of the Nuremberg trials, for example, established principles regarding Nazi war crimes, and mandated that individuals accused of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War would be prosecuted in an international military court assembled by all the countries party to the treaty (the U.S.A., USSR, England and France), which would operate in Nuremberg. It was further determined that these criminals may be prosecuted by the national justice systems of all the countries party to the established international court. The treaty was ratified by 19 additional countries and in 1946 its principles were unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly. Therefore, it was determined that crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are crimes in all states, and all states can prosecute individuals who were responsible for committing them. As a result, Nazi war criminals were prosecuted in several countries.

In another example, the Rules of War were expanded by the 1949 Geneva Convention, and demarcate the line between "right" and "wrong" in times of war. They also define what are benign and flagrant violations. They entrust each individual state with the responsibility to locate and prosecute violators, even if the crime was committed outside its jurisdiction and was not directed against it or its citizens. The description of the flagrant violations extended the definition of war crimes beyond their Nuremberg definition and subjected them to universal jurisdiction.

It is important to note that human rights organizations all over the world have been instrumental in the implementation of universal jurisdiction, as they were, for instance, in actions filed against former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and others in the case of the massacre of Palestinians by Christian militias in Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon. This has contributed to the entry of politics into the universal jurisdiction process, as may be seen in many actions brought by NGOs that are supported financially by special interest groups or even states for the benefit of their own agendas.

In a more recent example, Turkish prosecutors said in February 2009 that they were investigating whether Israeli leaders should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity over Israel's offensive in Gaza, after Mazlum-Der, an Islamic-oriented human rights organization, filed an official complaint in Turkey. The group asked that the Israeli officials be detained if they enter Turkey.

In addition, a Spanish judge is currently investigating the role of Israeli soldiers and security officials in a bombing in Gaza in 2002 in which a top Hamas suicide bombing planner, Salah Shehada, and 14 other people were killed. In 2005, Israeli Brig.-Gen. Doron Almog was warned not to leave his plane at Heathrow Airport in London after a UK court issued a warrant for his detention.

The case which opened the floodgates of prosecution under international jurisdiction in recent years was that of Chilean General Pinochet. In 1998, England received a request from a judge in Spain to extradite Augusto Pinochet so he could stand trial in a Spanish court for crimes committed against Spaniards in the territory of Chile. Litigators who support universal jurisdiction believe Pinochet's arrest to be a turning point. Yet critics of the case argued that it was wrong to use the principle of universal jurisdiction as a tool to settle political disputes

Contemporary implementation of universal jurisdiction is very controversial among international law experts. No public discussion as to its proper implementation and enforcement has ever taken place and, as a result, there are no universally accepted rules.

Every state exercises universal jurisdiction authority according to its own domestic laws, which are far from being international common knowledge. Nor are there any unified definitions of the crimes or certainty about the defense the accused must be afforded. The statutes of limitation differ from country to country. In addition, local trial judges are not always well versed in international law. Thus, all these factors are possible hindrances to the execution of universal jurisdiction.

This situation changes when jurisdiction is exercised by international organizations. International courts such as the ICC exercise rules agreed to by all the countries party to their founding treaties. Furthermore, when the UN Security Council appoints an ad-hoc court, it operates within the framework of international conventions and statutes designated for this purpose by the UN, sometimes even in full cooperation with the countries involved. In both cases, the crimes are clearly defined, as are the rules of evidence, available legal protection, and the like. One should also bear in mind that the judges appointed to these courts usually represent a wide spectrum of legal opinions and some of them are international law experts.

No Need for External Intervention in Cases Under Israeli Jurisdiction

It is important to remember that universal jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court are applied when a country does not or cannot act to prosecute. To my regret, since Israeli army officers have been subject to universal jurisdiction in different countries, it appears that some include Israel in the category of states that would not or cannot take action against such crimes.

Here the answer is clear. Israel is a democracy with a well-developed judicial system, as the statistics below prove. The military judicial system is separate from the civilian courts, with the ability to appeal decisions handed down in a lower court. The Israel Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, receives complaints against the military courts and against the discretion of the military prosecution.

The military police reported that between 2000 and 2007, Israel's military judicial system conducted 272 investigations of illegal firing of weapons, with 31 indictments and 17 convictions; 330 investigations of property damage, with 36 indictments and 36 convictions; 475 investigations of violence, with 37 indictments and 34 convictions; and 128 investigations of crimes in the Palestinian areas, with 20 indictments and 18 convictions. The case of Salah Shehada, mentioned above, has already been reviewed thoroughly by Israel's Supreme Court, which is widely respected in the international legal community. What would a Spanish court have to add?

In 2008 there was a large increase in the number of complaints, investigations and convictions. This may be due to the establishment in October 2007 of a new unit - the Military Advocate for Operational Affairs. This unit deals with two types of cases: complaints involving Palestinians and training accidents.

Let us recall that during the Lebanese War in 1982, an Israeli investigative panel consisting of two sitting Supreme Court justices and a high army officer was established to investigate the actions at Sabra and Shatilla, while Lebanon pardoned all those responsible for the crimes committed there. As a result of this panel, then-Defense Minister Sharon was removed from his post. Nevertheless, Belgium decided to attempt to prosecute Sharon. Doesn't this have the ring of political influence?

Political Exploitation of Universal Jurisdiction

A particularly problematic aspect of this issue is political exploitation of universal jurisdiction. Dr. Henry Kissinger wrote in 2001 that in the course of less than ten years we have witnessed an unprecedented movement to turn international politics into legal proceedings, an argument mentioned with growing frequency.

When prosecution is initiated by a country not wholly unrelated to a case, there is always the very real possibility that it is doing so for political reasons. International law does not require that the prosecuting country be neutral or politically impartial in order to exercise its jurisdiction in a given case.

An example of this problem can be found in the attempts to prosecute former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for actions in Lebanon. When the lawsuit was first filed in Belgium, which indulges in a very broad definition of the principle of universal jurisdiction, Israel's Justice Ministry began receiving many letters describing Belgium's actions in the Congo.

Many countries are likely to find skeletons buried not so deep in the closet of their own past that qualify as crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. Are countries with such tainted pasts really fit to serve as representatives of the international community in adjudicating crimes of which they themselves may be found guilty?

It is interesting to note how some African nations view universal jurisdiction. Recently, Rose Kabuye, director general of state protocol in Rwanda, was arrested in Germany in accordance with a French extradition warrant. This is an example of why some African nations refer to universal jurisdiction as Western judicial imperialism, because they do not see cases brought by one Western nation against another Western nation. Could you envision a European state bringing action against U.S. generals and politicians for war crimes in Iraq? Belgium considered it, but was deterred by the U.S. threat to remove NATO headquarters from Brussels.

There is no doubt that the will of a country to arrest and prosecute is affected by its relationship with the country where the crimes had been committed and by its military and economic strength. For example, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's strong criticism of Pinochet's arrest was influenced by the aid he offered Great Britain during the Falklands war.

Many countries are careful to limit their view of universal jurisdiction to a demand that either the suspect or the victim be in their territorial jurisdiction for such a process to begin. The purpose for which universal jurisdiction was created may be a worthy and noble one. However, its current execution is problematic, to say the least.

* * *

Irit Kohn, Esq., joined the Israel Ministry of Justice in 1989 and from 1995 to 2005 was director of its International Affairs Department. In that position she was involved in one of the first cases involving universal jurisdiction as head of the legal team defending Prime Minister Sharon in Belgium in 2001. In 2004, she was elected Vice-President of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. This Jerusalem Viewpoints is based in part on her presentation on November 26, 2008, at a conference in London on "Averting Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction."

"JUDEN RAUS"! JEWS - GET OUT OF JERUSALEM! (Says U.S. AMBASSADOR)

Everyone who reads this should vigorously protest to their own Congressmen, the White House, the State Department, the Media, the Israeli Knesset members and world Jewry. Provide this article to all their local papers and TV news outlets.

From the US Ambassador to Israel:


“Jews will just have to leave Jerusalem”

US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones suggested during a tour of overcrowded Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem on Monday that many Jews will just have to move out of the capital rather than expand into parts of the city claimed by the Palestinians.

Jones told said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post that Washington is growing increasingly displeased with Jewish housing projects on the eastern side of Jerusalem, which are certain to hinder efforts to conclude a peace deal along the lines of US President George W. Bush's vision for the region.

The American envoy said he is well aware of the lack of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, but in a remark betraying a lack of understanding regarding Jewish historical and spiritual connection to the city Jones concluded that "sometimes people do have to move to a different location. They cannot always stay close to their families."

He insisted that more important than the Jews' restoration to their biblical capital and heartland is Israel's implementation of commitments made as part of the US-driven Road Map peace process, even if unreciprocated by the Palestinians.

Jones ended the interview by all but justifying the Palestinian Authority's ongoing failure to meet its primary obligations to curb anti-Israel violence and incitement by stating that "it is not easy for either side to move ahead when they see the provocative behavior of the other side."


Blogmaster's Opinion: Isn't it plain to all that there is No Love Lost for Israel in the Bush-CondiSleeza Rice plan for restructuring the face of the Middle East? Jones is not a stupid individual. Far from it...his comments to the press are carefully orchestrated to have the most adverse impact on Israel and the Jewish people. If Olmert had any backbone, he would demand Jones be recalled for his blatant anti-Jewish statements and attitude. We must realize that Jones is the direct representative of the Bush Administration in general and the U.S. State Department in particular in Israel. Nothing he says cannot be construed as U.S. policy unless his comments are disavowed at the highest level. This has not been done. We can expect no help from the Bush/CondiSleeza team and we need to act accordingly.

Comments by Emanuel A. Winston,
Middle East Analyst & Commentator
"JUDEN RAUS"! JEWS - GET OUT!"

Reminiscent of the Nazi orders for Jews to "Get Out!. U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, tells the Jews to get out of Jerusalem. Richard Jones, speaking for both himself as well as President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ordered Israel's Jews to move out of their Ancient, Eternal Capital of Jerusalem in deference to Muslim Arab Palestinians who want to move in.

Ambassador Jones, you have shamed your nation, acting the bigot as the voice of the Bush and Rice regime who are looking for a memorable legacy.

IF Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had any courage, he would demand that the U.S. State Department recall Jones as unethical and unsuitable for his post. To say to a Jewish nation that has been hounded to death by bigots and anti-Semites that they must get out of their Holy City of Jerusalem shames all Americans.

King David declared Jerusalem to be the Holy Capital of the Jewish people and his kingdom in 1003 BCE. The City remained the capital of the Davidic dynasty for 400 years, until the kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians. Following their return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE, Jerusalem again served as the capital of the Jewish people in its land for the next five and a half centuries. During the six centuries of Roman and Byzantine rule, Caesarea, not Jerusalem, was the capital for the Christians. During Muslim rule over the city, whether Arab or non-Arab, Jerusalem was never made the political capital of a Muslim entity or even a province within the Muslim empire. They made Ramle their political center.

That the City of King David was the Capital of the Jews for thousands of years before Arabs, Muslims or America became a nation is an irrefutable fact of history, despite deniers. You, Mr. Jones, have clearly demonstrated that you are a bigot of the first order and must be dismissed - unless, of course, you are to be defended by President Bush and Secretary Rice. Appeasing Muslim Arab Palestinians, be they Fatah or Hamas, reflects political doctrine that is cruelly biased.

Over centuries, Jews have been driven out of various Christian European nations and Muslim Arab countries - simply because they were Jews. It's not the first time that our Land and assets have been coveted and confiscated by Gentile governments. Only this time the doctrine comes from an American presidential dynasty with German ancestors living in free America who carries with them that old virus of anti-Semitism, barely hidden behind a U.S. State Department policy dedicated to appeasing Muslim and Arab oil nations.

Driving Jews off their Land and confiscating their assets is not new.

The Church and aristocracy of Spain drove the Jews out of their Land while seizing their assets and cancelling loans the Church and King borrowed from the Jews.

The Germans confiscated everything they could, from buildings, banks, factories, cancelling all debts, cancelling insurance owed to the Jews and finally, extracting the gold from the teeth of their corpses. The Swiss mountain dwarfs acted as Germany's "fence" to dispose of their loot and thus kept the war going for several years, killing more Jews and American soldiers.

The rest of Europe, France, for example, first turned their Jews over to the Gestapo and then fell on the assets of the Jews like vultures. Apartments, houses, art collections - some found later in the offices of François Mitterrand, among others. Apartments of Jews were doled out to business partners or relatives of the French politicians.When the Arab and/or Muslims of Egypt, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. drove 850,000 Jews out of their countries, the Muslim Arabs looted everything. Bank accounts, land, stores with goods still on the shelves, factories, debts cancelled. The Jews were driven out with only the clothes on their backs and the nations of the world remained silent.

We cannot forget American diplomats like the Dulles Brothers, John Foster and Allen, who assisted in grabbing the gold train carrying the loot the Germans stole from the Jews. Art collections of the Masters, silver table service, gold, jewelry and more. That mostly disappeared although some of the valuables were taken by high ranking American officers to be shipped back to their homes as "booty".

Ah. Yes! I remember it well.

So now, the Bush family with a history that goes back to Prescott Bush, a great supporter of Adolph Hitler who established the Bush family fortune now wishes to dispose of Jerusalem. The Bush regime wants what the Jews own and built to be confiscated and used as payment to hordes of Muslim Terrorists.

Even the Church of Rome, guided by a German Pope, formerly part of the Hitler Youth wants its part of the Jerusalem loot - including political and religious control over Jerusalem.

And so it goes....The Jews build and the nations steal what the Jews build.

Everyone who reads this should vigorously protest to their own Congressmen, the White House, the State Department, the Media, the Israeli Knesset members and world Jewry. Provide this article to all their local papers and TV news outlets.