Howard Epstein – ETHNIC-CLEANSING V JÜDENREIN AND ARABEREIN
CAN WE SAY THE STATE OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE ARABEREIN?
NO WE CAN’T.
The Boy Wonder – Or Yesterday’s Man of Tomorrow
Elected for his boyish looks, the counter-racist advantage of being black (well black-ish, as his mother was white), a slogan – Yes We Can – and the promise of “change”, President Obama set about junking the lot: slogan, promise, his black constituency and his country’s allies, causing widespread disappointment amongst those in whose breasts he had stirred so much hope, from the Nobel Prize committee down.
An internet search of Obama promises kept or broken will deliver to your screen many of each, so quantity is not a problem. It is the quality of the promises, made and implied, on which he should be tested. In a review of 18 such web-pages, I was unable to identify any that came close to the one promise he should have made in the interests of his own (black) constituency:
“If elected I shall require every police force in the USA to operate a shoot-not-to-kill-except-to-save-life policy”.
Don’t bother looking for it. Apparently, it never occurred to him.
Disregard for Blacks
As I write, the city of Charlotte in North Carolina is in a state of emergency after a black motorist was shot and killed by a black police officer serving in a force with a black police chief.
“Chief Putney said Thursday that footage from the Scott shooting does not show ‘absolute, definitive visual evidence that could confirm that a person is pointing a gun. I didn’t see that in the videos I saw.’”
Gun crime, and the shooting of blacks by other blacks and by police officers (usually white), on a scale vastly different from that suffered by whites in the USA (or by anyone at all outside the USA) is as grossly pernicious today as before Obama was elected upon a platform of promised change. (The image shows police killings in the USA since Ferguson in August 2014.)
At the end of Obama’s two four year terms we see race relations, between black and white US citizens, worse than they have been since the 1960s when the deterioration was catalyzed by blacks seeking, by dignified and peaceful action, to bring about the most wide-ranging improvement in the condition of the African-American (desegregation) since the Civil War.
So much for forsaking his black constituency. For them, Yes We Can has turned to dust in the mouth of the arid, remote, aloof, professorial Obama as surely as the change, that he promised he could bring about, failed to materialize.
Disregard for Allies
As for America’s allies, let me merely quote from the typically insightful and comprehensive Obama’s “dénoument” review by Ms Caroline Glick in last Friday’s Jerusalem Post. Of the now-notorious, Congress-circumventing and as yet unsigned JCPOA settlement, that guarantees that Iran will become a nuclear force to be feared within less than nine years from now, she wrote:-
The nuclear deal radically changes not only the US’s policy toward Iran and toward every nation, friend and foe, in the Middle East. As former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz argued during the nuclear negotiations, it upends 70 years of US nuclear policy, undermining the foundations of the US’s non-proliferation policies
At a time when US generals and geo-political commentators are – openly now – ticking off the months remaining before North Korea has the ability to nuke the Continental United States, one is compelled to exclaim: Another great Democratic Presidential legacy! Clinton, the nuclear enabler of North Korea; Obama, the nuclear enabler of Iran.
But there is more.
The MOU, the Boy Wonder and the $38 Billion
One pre-election promise Obama expressly made – and kept – was as follows:-
Provide $30 billion over 10 years to Israel: “Implement a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.”
and, last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu, reportedly fearful that an incoming US president might take a less generous approach, bit off Obama’s hand.
Yet, as Ms Glick noted, Obama’s good ship Bounty (you will remember the mutiny on, and destruction of, the original) was not all that the headlines conferred on it, not that is, as a form of altruism designed to secure the future of the Jewish State. Preening now as Israel’s very-bestest-friend-ever, Obama might feel free to pull the rug from under Israel at a future UN Security Council vote on the French-inspired Two-State “Solution”.
Even the figures alone of the MOU show that it is not what it is cracked up to be. To have lined up $38 billion over ten years looks reassuring, but did anyone expect such beneficence to reach us without strings attached? I suspect not. So few will be surprised to read that daily news aggregator and commentator, Dr Aaron Lerner, writing on his IMRA website, unpicking some of those strings, identified how the new security MOU:-
- provides for a winding down of the application of part of the US funding to the purchase of Israeli made equipment. The temptation is to have the Israeli suppliers ship off the work to an American subsidiary or joint venture;
- effectively bars additional funding via “unilateral” congressional initiatives for the first two years. The temptation is to postpone critical programs in the hopes of getting American funding once the two year freeze ends; and
- causes Israel to favor inferior American products supplied for free over superior Israeli technology. The temptation is to underestimate the impact of these decisions on Israel’s critical military edge.
All this is the antithesis of what I wrote in this column earlier this month:-
Israel, already diversifying its markets eastwards, and wary of what the future holds in terms of US policy towards it, should look to the Chinese for financing. With its massive credit account balance (it is actually the world’s largest creditor nation, whilst the US is the world’s largest debtor nation), and new global banking ambitions, with the launch last January of the Asia International Investment Bank (AIIB) as a rival to the US-led World Bank, China should be Israel’s funder of first resort. Then we should be able to break free of the US monopoly-hold over our fighter/bomber aircraft, free to develop our own version of the F22 or F35 and freed from US oversight of every mission through software that speaks to the US manufacturer. (Talk about the Nanny State? This is Big Brother in the cockpit.)
I find myself in august company. This last week, the Gatestone Institute asked:
So why does the new U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) feel oddly coercive on the part of President Obama?
and gave, as one of several answers to its own question, this:-
President Obama is tying Israel’s hands for the future by extracting a promise that it will not approach Congress for funds in excess of those in the MOU “unless it is at war”.
Well, when were we ever not? Perhaps we see an escape clause here; but in any event, Congress will not wish its freedom of movement vis-à-vis Israel to be fettered once the real big Obama change we can look forward to occurs on January 20, 2017, and they are dealing with a new president.
Bibi’s Week
The Israeli Prime Minister has had a busy week. Apart from tying up Israel’s inventive hands, and constraining its technological dynamism in the interests of putting the presidential known (lame-duck Obama) before the presidential unknown (sickly/corrupt Clinton or oafish/unpredictable Trump), the PM told the UN General Assembly that the days of Israel-bashing were coming to an end. He disclosed, to those who had eschewed reading it for themselves, the good news about Israel: that nations who still don’t know how to do stuff have been beating a path to our door like never before to take home a share of Israeli know-how.
Netanyahu went on to offer the podium at the Knesset to that old Jew-baiter, Abu Maazen (PhD in Holocaust denial at the Patrice Lumumba “KGB” University of Moscow and later – surprise, surprise – a Soviet spy), whilst offering to speak in Ramallah directly to the Palestinian people (an entity that was hardly perceived before mentor, Arafat, forged it in the blood and guts of our young, earnest and innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich).
Ethnic-Cleansing v Jüdenrein and Araberein
The UN appearance of our Prime Minister came hard on the heels of his doing the unthinkable and spelling out the fallacy of the world view of the Two State “Solution” in the starkest terms – yet in my view technically mistakenly. (I don’t know about you, but to me “The Two-State Solution” somehow smacks of “The Final Solution”. Why are other people always looking for solutions for us? We already have the cure; for goodness sake don’t send us the disease!)
In a video posted to his Facebook page on September 9, PM Netanyahu condemned, as “ethnic-cleansing”, the Palestinians’ demand that any future state of theirs must be devoid of Jews. He was roundly and comprehensively castigated for it in every forum from that of the UN to those of most of its constituent members. For example, US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau rebuked Netanyahu thus:-
“We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful.”
Well, to my eyes and ears, inappropriate it is, for ethnic-cleansing is usually the result of genocide – 
forceful and bloody (as we saw in 1940s Europe, and more recently in the Balkans and East Timor) – whereas, first off, at any rate, the Palestinians want us, ALL OF US, out of there, as part of a treaty negotiated or imposed (as the French plan). See? No genocide. (Not at first.)
The truth that the Israeli Prime Minister had intended to convey is that the Palestinians want Judea and Samaria to be delivered to them, to use the Nazi term, “Jüdenrein”. Let us be clear: rein is German for “pure”. By Jüdenrein, they – Hitler/Himmler/Heydrich/ Rosenberg/Eichmann and the whole coterie of deranged gangsters that dragged the world into a war that cost the lives of around one third of the population of today’s America – meant that when every part of Germany and its conquered territories had been rendered devoid of all Jewish life, the land would be pure – would have been purified. Make no mistake about it: that is what the Palestinians want for their undeveloped and unlikely-to-be-much-better-developed state of Palestine in Judea and Samaria. Day one – no Jews. Et voila! Sans Juifs. Pur des Juifs.
Gaza today is “pure”, and undeveloped, in that way. The Hamas leadership, which tore down Israeli glasshouses and other utilities in an orgy of nihilism after Sharon pulled us out of there (but that’s another 
story), provides for the world a crystal ball of the purest clarity that enables all to foresee the Palestinian future after the delivery of their much-yearned for “Solution”. So while much of Africa, and beyond, lines up to acquire from Israel solutions for their problems, our closest neighbors foreswear everything Israeli.
Here is the Hamas approach to lining: take the money from the gullible donor nations to line with silver the pockets of its leadership – and then line with concrete their Israel-invasive tunnels. (Not as pure, you might think, as Israel, since 1967, facilitating the building of the only tertiary-education establishments ever founded on the west bank of the River Jordan. (Twenty-three, since you ask.)
So now let us return to the theme – Jüdenrein or Araberein – and graphically juxtapose the quintessential questions:-
| Jüdenrein? | Araberein? |
| Should a future State of Palestine (population some 3 million, home to some 600,000 Jews or 20% of the population in 2015) – be rendered Jüdenrein? | Should the State of Israel (population some 8.5 million, home to some 1.72 million Arabs or 20% of the population in 2015) be rendered Araberein? |
Farcical questions, are they not? And not least for the symmetry of the statistics.
Prime Minister Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly last week that it was time for the world to get real. Their answers (it should be one and the same) to those questions – two sides of the same coin – would be a valid revelation of the world’s progress from self-delusion to realism.
© Howard Epstein September 2016
Coda:
For those of you who think my attacks on the departing Obama are a malicious aberration borne out of some form of Olde Worlde ignorance, here is an extract from today’s Sunday Times (of London) penned by Scottish academic, Niall Ferguson, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University (and married to the redoubtable Ayaan Hirsi Ali):-
The word “global” appeared 17 times in President Obama’s sanctimonious farewell address to the UN general assembly. “The global economy . . . global integration . . . our global economy has made life better for billions of men, women and children . . . a global supply chain . . . global trade . . . global capital . . . global marketplace . . . global education . . . global security.” This is what happens to speechwriters after nearly eight years of bromide production. What begins as internationalism ends as globaloney.
~~~~~
As usual, I have borrowed from my recently-published book for the allusions to America and its disappointing political leaders.
E-Book Kindle USA
Paperback – Amazon USA
https://www.createspace.com/6478702
E-Book Kindle UK
Paperback – Amazon UK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Traumas-Exceptionalism-cultural-approach/dp/1536926922/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471770473&sr=1-2&keywords=guns+traumas
