In a recent speech at New York University in February, at a forum co-hosted by the White House and the Islamic Center at New York University, John Brennan, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser, called Jerusalem by its Arabic name “Al-Quds,” praised Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance, and encouraged Hizbullah while calling Jihad a legitimate tenet of Islam
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/).

While these comments normally would be considered outrageous, disgraceful and a source of derision by rational individuals, especially those who know and understand history, one must realize that his words may easily be construed as a deliberate action of the Obama administration to help Muslims dejudaize Jerusalem and Israel and thereby, help bring about Israel’s destruction and that of the Jewish people.  One must realize that the Obama administration has a great advantage in spreading its venom since it is working with a pastiche consisting of the unrelenting anti-Israel/antisemitic attacks of the political left, the Arab Muslim propaganda machine and a compliant antisemitic world-wide media.  Similarly, one should not forget that hate is the most powerful human emotion and that religiously inspired hate is more powerful than any other stimulant – including nationalism – unless it is the marriage of religion with nationalism, in its broadest sense, which is exceedingly prevalent in the Muslim world.

Before you think me mad and paranoid, let us look at some of the evidence in addition to that most recent and obvious action of President Obama’s very public and undeserved attempt at humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disgraceful and cowardly beating up of Israel.

However, Brennan’s statements leave me puzzled as to where to begin an analysis.

Why would President Obama select John Brennan as his surrogate?  Certainly, as head of the counterterrorism department, his would be a powerful voice for whitewashing Saudi Arabia and the Muslim nations of their anti-civilized behavior.  Who could be better to provide exoneration, grant dispensation and help change the American public’s negative perception of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations and Israel’s positive perception than John Brennan, a man who, as a result of his education and environment, has been primed all of his life to have an animus towards Israel and Jews and who, as a result of his professional employment in the state department, who had or developed a predilection for Israel’s enemies to carry out such a two pronged task?  John Brennan  is a Roman Catholic who was born and raised in Bergen, NJ, one of the more notorious communities in the country having an infamous past and present with respect to Nazism and antisemitism, who was educated in the Roman Catholic educational system and who spent a good part of his adult life representing the Muslim Mid-East to America (Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA;  Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA; Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State).

In the same speech, Brennan also spoke of his time at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, referring to the common aspirations of his former Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian classmates, including the freedom “to practice our faith freely … In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina.”

Yet, while these Muslims refer to practicing their Muslim religion, they refuse the same right to others.  But such uncivil actions do not seem bother John Brennan since he has no compunctions about outright lying about his Muslim charges by praising Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance.

Yet the reality of Saudi Arabian attitudes towards others is grounded in its government and belies his statement.   It is well known that Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and all Saudi citizens must be Muslims and, therefore,  there can be no freedom of religion, no separation of Church and State and there are no guarantees of freedom of religion.  In fact, Saudi Arabia prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam.  The Saudi government does not permit its citizens to view this internet web sites primarily devoted to religious freedom and tolerance.  The Christian cross, the Magen David (Star of David, the symbol of Judaism) or the symbol of any other religion is not permitted to be displayed in public. Only Muslim holy days are permitted to be celebrated.  There is widespread discrimination against women.  There is no tolerance for the LGBT community as evidenced by the punishment that can be inflicted, ranging from imprisonment, lashes, to execution.  Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are greatly restricted: as is access to the internet and there can be no criticism of the government   Saudi Arabia bans Trade Unions and political organizations..

The political, antisemitic, mean spirited, hypocritical and irresponsible political left has gone insane labeling the open, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, culturally diverse, democratic Israeli society an apartheid state while there is  no comparable criticism of what is clearly the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic, monarchical dictatorship devoid of a written constitution and an elected legislature that is beholden to an extreme and murderous  fundamentalist sect of Islam.

The inability of the political left to acknowledge its overt hypocrisy is an absolute condemnation of its basic philosophy and its actions based thereon.  There is no real need on my part, other than recognizing their existence, to refer to the more traditional antisemites since, by their definition or ideology, anything a Jews does, except die, is unacceptable behavior.

The  inability of the political left to discern differences, their herd mentality and their willingness to permit  ideology to override evidence, science and reason is definitive evidence of the hate-filled animus the left evinces towards Israel and Jews.  These are the reasons why their continuous criticism of Israel is nonsensical: it is rarely based on fact but, unfortunately, all too often based on a  very selective presentation of information – not necessarily facts – and its outright distortions.  Such hatred of Israel on the part of the political left by its self-proclaimed intellectuals easily can be explained by the intense smug arrogance of true believers in and adherents of an ignorant and false ideology.  But, then again, one of the hallmarks of the modern political left is its inability to think rationally.  After all, this is group that came up with the idiotic non-scientific concept that all scientific knowledge is relative.  However, when a friend offered one of the proponents of this philosophy to come to the roof of a building so they could jump off to test the relativeness of the concept of gravity, the individual refused.  Yet, the same individual still insists on teaching that scientific knowledge is relative.   Once again, such inability to think  rationally, is another manifestation of the deadly influence of a false ideology in society.  And, unfortunately, to the detriment to the public at large, the political left exerts a deadly influence in society especially when it comes to Israel.

Brennan has also been quoted as having said: “Hizbullah is a very interesting organization,” that evolved from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia and now to an organization that has members within the parliament and the cabinet. “There is certainly the elements of Hizbullah that are truly a concern to us, what they’re doing,” Of course what Brennan fails to say is that Hizbullah is a Lebanese-Iranian proxy terrorist group that continually calls for the destruction of Israel and has launched thousands of missiles into Israel civilian communities.

In his speech, Brennan referred to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, AL Quds.  As far as I could tell, this was an overt indication of Obama’s attempts to dejudaize Jerusalem and perhaps even deny Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.   Why use the name Al-Quds when the name Jerusalem is at least 3,000 years older than the arabic name and the entire world has always known this city as Jerusalem unless there is another agenda?.  Is Obama, through Brennan, providing another signal to the Arab and Muslim worlds that he is amenable to help them sate their unquenchable hatred of Israel and Jews and fulfill their equally insatiable desire to destroy Israel?

Brennan seems to be holding Israel completely the blame for all that has and is going wrong in that part of the middle east while not holding the Palestinians accountable for anything, including their unrelenting terrorism and teaching of hate against Israel and the Jewish people.

Obama role in the eventual destruction of Israel also includes his efforts in changing the public’s favorable attitude towards Israel this can be best seen in his most egregious action when he outright lies about American soldiers losing their lives because of Israel; no American soldier has ever been sent by any American administration to defend Israel and, therefore, no American soldier has died from such a non-existent order..  All Israel has ever asked is that arms be made available to it so it can defend itself.  The fact that  Israel still exists is proof of its abilities to care for itself.  What President Obama refused to acknowledge is that Israel took American arms and altered them with more advanced electronic technology to enhance their capabilities.  Of course, he failed to inform the public that the successful Israeli technology was adopted by the US military and has helped save American lives.  Ditto for the invaluable intelligence information the US obtains from the Mossad.  None of this seems to matter to President Obama as he continues his war against Israel by falsely linking American national security interests to the inability of Israelis and Palestinians to make peace.

The media have been speculating about how President Obama is going to resolve the dilemma created by the Turkish/Israeli confrontation resulting from the sailing of the flotilla from Turkey and the very serious injury of an Israeli soldier and the unfortunate killing of several Turkish citizens.  There is also the issue of the very vociferous, world-wide hypocritical condemnation of Israel.  As a result of this incident there seems to be a fraying of the tripartite relationship amongst Turkey, Israel, and the  United States.  Turkey, a non-Arab state, is considered to be the one Muslim nation most favorable to Israel.

But is this falling apart between Turkey and Israel so surprising or was it predictable?  As long as Turkey was a secular oriented state, relations with Israel were excellent.  In the past several years, the Muslim clerics have gained greater influence, much to the chagrin of the secularists, and relations with Israel began to deteriorate and, thereafter, have been worsening.  Thus, this latest incident was an inevitable result of Turkey’s religiously based shifting of its national interests. Also, if Turkey is going to realize its aspirations of being an independent  regional power, it will have to impress the surrounding Muslim Arab states and the rest of the Muslim world by start distancing itself from Israel while demonstrating an aggressive stance toward Israel.

Indeed, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister, used similar language as his Saudi Arabian neighbors by describing the flotilla incident as “state terrorism,”"piracy,” “banditry” and “barbarism.”

In view of the US’s relationship with Turkey, one has to question why the US did not use its influence with Turkey to have Turkey stop the flotilla and avoid any confrontation?  Perhaps any influence the US had with the Turkish governments also waned pari passu the rise of the political influence of the Muslim clerics.

There is another explanation.  The President must have known that the flotilla expedition was organized not by peace activists, as the media insisted on portraying them, but  by the IHH, a Turkish group that has ties to Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza.  In view of President Obama’s changing America’s attitude towards Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds, it would not be surprising to learn that the US, behind the scene, sanctioned the sailing of the flotilla.  And, in light of John Brennan’s speech, this explanation takes on greater credence.  If President Obama wanted, he could have stopped the flotilla weeks before it left or he could have prepared the world for what was to come.

Further, President Obama successfully convinced Hillary Rodham-Clinton to change her positions on Israel that she supported for eight years she served as senator from NY.  This may not have been a difficult task since her true leftist beliefs about Israel the Mid East are more in line with that of President Obama and the far left than what she propounded for political expediency as senator.  For example: during the 1980’sand 1990a, in her pre-senate days, Hillary Rodham-Clinton had an appalling anti-Israel record, In the 1980s, she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which funded the Palestine Liberation Organization.  This support was forthcoming despite the fact that the PLO was officially considered to be a terrorist organization by the United States.  And, I doubt if anyone will ever forget Hillary Rodham-Clinton kissing Soha Arafat, the wife of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, while never demonstrating similar affection to any Israeli, man or woman, who espoused freedom from terrorism.

The world outrage against Israel was put into perspective by Thomas Friedman: “But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.”  Of course, to this list one could also add the thousands of missiles that Hamas rained down on Israeli civilians.

All the uproar against Israel seems not to take into consideration what was the reason for the blockade: to deny Hamas the weaponry and raw materials it needs to continue its rocket attacks in Israel, killing innocent civilians, actions to which the world, by its silence, sanctioned.  The silence was broken only when Israel dared to respond.  There is not a single nation in the world that would tolerate having missiles attack its civilian populations without some immediate retaliation.  Only Israel is expected not just to tolerate these attacks but is expected to accept the blame for their necessity.  Instead of Israel being the victim, the Arab and Muslim worlds supported by their antisemitic cohorts, especially those in the media, insist on portraying the Israelis as the perpetrators and the so-called “Palestinians” as the victims. Orwell’s 1984 (or is it Brave New World?) had become a reality.

Even Vice President Biden – on the Charlie Rose show – recognized, perhaps in an unguarded moment which would seem to differ from the official Obama stance, that Israel has an “absolute right” to defend its security interests. He admitted that It is legitimate for Israel to say that it does not know what is on those ships.

What was not said by the antisemitic left and the Arabists is that maritime blockades are legal, legitimate and effective military measures of self-defense.  No civilian nor military ship is permitted to enter the blockaded area once the recognized criteria for imposing a blockade have been met, which the Israelis did.  Therefore Israel behaved correctly in exerting its right under international law to enforce the blockade against the flotilla terrorists who explicitly expressed their intention of breaking it, especially after Israel sent warnings to the captain’s of the ships that it intends to enforce the blockade.  Similarly, Israeli soldiers had every right to defend themselves when their attempt to board the lead ship peacefully were met with violence.

There is not a country in the world that would have behaved differently under similar circumstances.
Notice what happened when the US blockaded Cuba in the 1960s and President Kennedy’s response to the Soviet Union’s desire to break it.  Although not a maritime blockade, Egypt did seal its borders between it and Gaza and even built a wall to separate the two areas thereby essentially imposing a land embargo.

There are a number of questions that could be raised about the failure of the so called humanitarians to protest or take actions against a variety of human rights violations by Arab and other Muslim nations, that do not involve Israel, that supports the allegations that the they are only protesting Israel to satisfy their antisemitic appetites.

The fact that President Obama has not fully backed Israel in this situation and not have his minions point out all the flaws in the reasoning of the protestors and their antisemitic supporters, suggests that he wants to curry factor with the Arab and Muslim worlds, and like Turkey, has to demonstrate his animus to Israel by distancing himself from it.

How much clearer can President Obama make it that through his use of people like John Brennan, he does intend to dejudaize Jerusalem and deligitimize the state of Israel and, thereby work for the ultimate destruction.

The political left and other antisemites throughout the world have much to celebrate this combination of the spring solstice, Passover and the Catholic Holy Week – the end of the Lenten Season.  President Obama gave them not only an Easter present but also a very early Christmas present.  In his triple  role as presidential Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and leader of his publicity stunt Passover Seder, President Obama gave them that which they long have been waiting and praying for, i.e., a highly publicized, presidential, public flogging of Israel and its Prime Minister, in this case, Benjamin Netanyahu.  The issue that brought this into being is Israel’s plan to build apartments in Jerusalem against President Obama’s wishes.. This was the President’s gift to the antisemitic world  for their symbolically finding the “afikomen” during a Passover seder in which, ironically, in essence, ancient words of hope and yearning to the following effect are usually said: “May these occasions inspire us to help rebuild the land of Israel and restore the city of Jerusalem..” The ultimate words of the Seder – sometimes they may be the penultimate words since they may be followed by a fervid sentiment for world peace – are (L’sho-noh Ha-bo-oh Bee-ru-sho-lo-yeem): “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Apparently, based on his recent, public petulance and actions, President Obanma, adopting a Messianic persona, apparently deems it his duty and responsibility to not just tell the Israelis what their ancient capital should consist of but orders them to accept his views or suffer consequences.  And, as would be expected, the rest of the world immediately attached themselves to the US led anti-Israel train.  On March 27, 2010, the N. Y. Times editorial staff, true to its over one hundred years of antisemitic and 60 years of anti-Israel editorials, wrote another of their devastating anti-Israel editorials using their usual technique – also widely used by other anti-Israel reporters throughout the world -  of only telling a one-sided story.  If they ever were to write truthfully, they would never be able to take the hard line anti-Israel position that they do.  Of course this was immediately followed by an anti-Israel screed by the NY Times’chief anti-Israel puppet, Roger Cohen

The arrogant audacity of the leader of one nation telling the people of another nation about its capital should, at the very least, tell the truth about the situation as well as recall and understand the region’s history: he at least should not forget that ever since King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel over 3000 years ago, Jerusalem has remained at the center of Judaism – it is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish scripture and not mentioned even once in the Koran.  Jerusalem became the capital of Israel and  Judaism almost 2000 years before the birth of Islam and about 2,950 years before the birth of the concept of a “Palestinian” people (1967).  This latter development, coming as another propaganda ploy coming 20 years after the establishment of Israel.

One can easily conclude that President Obama’s flogging of Israel, based on specious facts seems to be part of another agenda which he has not revealed.  Else, why would President Obama not deem it important to reveal that the community (not a “settlement” – a loaded term if ever there was one) in question is not in East Jerusalem but in North Jerusalem?. He made it appear as if the Israelis were arbitrarily encroaching on “Arab lands” when in actuality, the involved community is part of an integral Jewish area and that the planning of this community was already in its third year with the actual construction to take place in another three years.

In view of the recent flap about the Governor of Virginia deliberately omitting the role of slavery in the American Civil War (The War Between The States, The War Of Northern Aggression) let us use the Civil War as a reference point.  Up till that time, the 1860s, the entire population (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, whatever) of Jerusalem lived within the walled city.  With the inevitable growth of population, both the Muslim Arabs and the Jews expanded communities inside and built new communities outside of the fabled walls.  Thus, there were large areas of so-called East Jerusalem that were Jewish.  President Obama should be well aware of this fact and not just imply or accept as fact that East Jerusalem is Arab.

I could not understand why President Obama refused to acknowledge that in 1948 when Jordan illegally conquered and occupied part of Jerusalem – which led to the division of the city and which is part of the reason for any dispute today – it destroyed synagogues, schools, cemeteries etc and used the material to build latrines so that the Muslims could urinate and defecate on Judaism.  During that time the U.S. and the rest of the world, including the Vatican, said nothing about Jordan’s claiming ownership of one portion of Jerusalem and its vile, anti-social actions within what it then deemed to be its rightful (by conquest) territory..

This understanding of sovereign rights given to Jordan was never extended to Israel.  After all, when Israel reunited the city as a result of the 1967 war, the land was now Israeli.  Since when does a sovereign nation not have the right to build in its own boundaries?  However, ever since the 1967 war, the world, especially the political left, goes insane over every move that Israel makes or plans to make.  Israel is denied the same right that every other nation has with respect to its land, especially since Israel came by the land honorably and legally when it once again defended itself from Muslim aggression, unlike what Jordan did in 1948 and what other countries have done from time immemorial.  The history of the United States is replete with the illegal taking of lands and incorporating them into its larger body and, thereafter, doing with the land as it will.  If you doubt what I say, just ask the American Indians (the Native Americans).  Since the 1967 war, the Vatican continued its 2000 year war on Judaism by lying about the disposition of the holy places.  There is not a major country that has not grown by accretion resulting from war.  Russia retains sovereignty over the Kuril Islands today as a result of its very late entry into the Pacific component of WW II – at the time of Russia’s entry, its assistance was not required.  The war had essentially been won.

One other fact that President Obama should be considering is that the concept of a Palestinian people was unheard of when the UN once again subdivided the remains of the Palestinian mandate into a Jewish and Arab state in 1947.  Instead of the Arab Muslims taking their chance to develop an independent state along side of the Jewish state, the Arabs chose to go to war and try to destroy the fledgling state of Israel.  And, this war has been on going ever since and is written into the Palestinian Charter.   But, the world doesn’t care for the facts that the Israelis are doing that which any nation under continued attack would do, i.e., defend itself.

President Obama and the rest of the world should finally acknowledge that there exists a Palestinian state, it is called Jordan.  In 1922, without legal authority, Great Britain, unilaterally, declared that the provisions of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan.  It was then that Winston Churchill, illegally took approximately 76% of the original Palestine Mandate to create the nation of Transjordan and installed Abdullah, a non-Palestinian Muslim from the Hejaz as its Emir.  It was this self-serving act, which helped change the political climate in the Mid East forevermore.  1949 the name Transjordan was changed to no longer to reflect a geological reality to what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which reflects a familial reality. The overwhelming majority of the people of Jordan are “Palestinians.”  It was the rulers who England imposed on the Palestinian people of Jordan who were the foreigners.  This fact is part of the tension existing in Jordan today and the reason for the great insecurity on part of its Hashemite rulers.  In 1947, the UN subdivided the remaining approximately 24% of the original Palestine Mandate into an Arab Muslim state and a Jewish state.  When Israel declared its independent nationhood in 1948, as per the United Nations action in 1947, the ensuing Arab Muslim-induced wars, designed to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, inevitably created new realities in the region.

(As an aside and without going into great detail, the name Palestine derives from the Roman Emperor Hadrian’s desire, following his success in defeating the Jews during the bar Kochba revolt (135 C.E.) – the second major Jewish revolt against Rome – to erase any memory of the areas association with the Jews.  He renamed the area Palestina – the Latin version of the Greek Philistine – which eventually evolved into the commonly known, modern, anglicized word, Palestine.  For the record, the Philistines were neither  Arabs nor Semites.  They were related to the Greeks.. Not only did they not speak Arabic, but they had no common cultural or biological kinship with the Arabs,
As a result of the Crusades, the name Palestine was informally used to include the lands on both sides of the Jordan River.  During WW I and especially after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the name Palestine was used to include the territory on both sides of the Jordan River that was incorporated into League Of Nations British Mandate for Palestine.  The modern Arabs have adopted the name Palestine as part of their on-going propaganda campaign against Israel to make people think that this is an ancient Arab name for the land.  In reality, the name “Falastin” – the Arab designation for Palestine – is not only not an Arabic word for some presumed ancient Arabic nation, but rather the Arabic pronunciation of Palestine.)

Instead of admiring and supporting a state that developed a thriving, modern, democratic society while being forced to spend at least 50% of its gross national product on defense and taking in and integrating immigrants from all over the world, the nations of the world gang up on it and work for its destruction.  The question is why?  Why would they behave in such an uncivilized manner?  Why should the President of the U.S. behave the way he is against Israel, a nation that has so much in common with the U.S., a nation that prevented the U.S. from suffering great loses in its wars with Iraq and a nation that acts as a depot for protecting American interests in the Middle East?  Why should the world, including the President of the U.S. be so concerned about the so-called “Palestinians” when they show little regard for other people throughout the world who are being persecuted and slaughtered, some of whom are being slaughtered in the name of Allah, the God of Islam?

Some pundits claimed that message that was supposed to be delivered to the world was that President Obama was not afraid to take on the supposed all powerful Israel Lobby and to demonstrate his willingness to be evenhanded in trying to solve what seems to be the intractable and interminable war between the so-called “Palestinian” Arabs and the Israelis.  Assuming, just for now, that these reasons are valid, one should be concerned with the not to subtle antisemitic sophistry being used as well as the data being used when referring to the intractable and interminable war.

Perhaps there is another aspect to the message, one which pundits would tend to dismiss as a possibility, i.e.,   perhaps the message also was delivered to help direct the public’s attention away from the internal political and economic problems the president is facing from the right as well as the left, despite his health care victory – job creation and unemployment has not improved significantly and permitting off-shore drilling with all of its inherent problems as demonstrated by British Petroleum’s irresponsible actions in the Gulf spill and ensuing widespread environmental degradation, instead of developing clean energy sources are examples of some of the problems the president is facing. After all,.Jews have been the world’s scapegoats for millennia.  Even today, in Hungry, the conservative political Jobbik party is gaining strength by blaming the Jews and the Roma (Gypsies) for all their domestic problems.

The tendency to dismiss the above possibility, undoubtedly rests on the presumed “unshakable bond” that supposedly exists between the United States and Israel which, in turn is based on the general American public’s sympathy for a democratic nation that is continuously being threatened with destruction especially when it is accompanied by a moral duty to preserve the Jewish people after the Holocaust and a mutual strategic interest in resisting Muslim extremism.

Despite the reasoning of the last paragraph, it has become quite clear that President Obama has other ideas about Israel.  That he is interested in changing the American public’s perception about Israel has become quite clear with his recent actions and statements, including his use of surrogates to signal his anti-Israel stance and his willingness to dejudaize Jerusalem, if not all of Israel.  I already covered this in a previous post.

Recently, Bob Herbert wrote an op-ed piece for the NY Times (Disaster in the Amazon, June 4, 2010) that set me thinking.  I forwarded the article to my family and friends with an introduction.  It is this introduction that I want to share with those who read this BLOG.

Dear Family and Friends
Environmentalists had been getting a bad rap for years from politicians and industrial leaders because of our attitude about preserving the environment.  Some of us environmentalists held and still hold to the view that when extracting resources from the earth, care should be taken to keep pollution of the environment to a minimum and, where possible, restore the earth to its previous condition.  It has been and still is our view that there is no conflict between job creation and the health of the environment.  Jobs can be created while adhering to an environmentally responsible action.   It also has been our view that environmental degradation was never included in economic calculations.  As I have repeatedly said for decades – at least since the late 1960s when I was active in the environmental movement, the air and the oceans, rivers, lakes and streams were not meant to be the free sewer systems for any industry.  These are the commons and they have to be respected and protected.  Beyond being the commons, they are also important sources of natural beauty, inspiration for artists, food as well as recreation and tourism.

Unless some solution is found for the current environmental oil spill disaster, the Louisiana Coast, well known for its unique Cajun life style, major source of sea food, recreational deep sea fishing and other tourist activities and resting grounds for migrating birds, surge protector of the coast etc. may well become a ghost region not too dissimilar to what happened when mines played out in the west or during the dust bowl but on a much larger scale.  In this case, the devastation will not be limited just to the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts but also Alabama and Florida and, depending on its getting into the Gulf Stream, even Europe.  This catastrophe has world wide ramifications.

One of the consequences of the deregulation that occurred in recent years resulting from the power of bribery (oops, I meant lobbying of  legislators – as BP is now doing) is that the rivers, lakes and streams of the US are once again becoming polluted.  It is as if we have learned nothing in the past 50 years.  But that is the story for another day

Be all that as it may, the recent BP incident is a perfect example of what happens when the environmental factor is not taken into consideration in planning and in oversight by elected and appointed governmental officials or agents (the evil power of money for bribery -  oops, there I go again, I’m sorry, I mean lobbying)

Now we read a story, that, unfortunately has receded from memory, simply because, over time, the media failed to keep us informed of the progress that was or was not being made in the case and because so many other momentous and not so momentous events have occurred that inevitably took our minds off it.

I am forwarding to you an update on the Ecuadorian tragedy created by Texaco over a three decade period of time written by Bob Herbert in an op-ed piece for the NY Times.

Read and weep

(I did not include Herbert’s article here, since I am not familiar with the proper etiquette and legalities of so doing.)

As I write this, an Irish ship called the Rachel Corrie is on its way to Gaza presumably bringing humanitarian aid.  Exactly what will happen when it approaches the Israeli blockade is unknown, especially in light of recent events involving the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara.

While the world seems to be obsessing as to what will happen, I am more inclined to think differently.  I cannot help but wonder why Ireland is permitting such a ship to sail from its ports to create such a deliberate confrontation?  Why would the Irish want to get involved in this situation? Other than trying to embarrass Israel and perhaps curry favor with the Arab and Muslim worlds, what has Ireland to gain from this potentially explosive situation?  Nothing that is overtly apparent.  There is another possibility.  Although the Irish people in the last decade or two have been coming out from under the oppressive influence of the Roman Catholic Church, are we still seeing remnants of deep seated antisemitism that the Church drove deep into its culture as it did in the culture of the entire Western world and the world at large?

The Irish government must know that there may well be a confrontation, else why would the Irish government request that Israel permit this ship with its provocative name to pass?  The Irish government could have prevented the ship form sailing just as the Turkish government could have prevented the Mavi Marmara from sailing.  After all, weeks before the sailing from Turkey, Israel did ask the Turkish government to intercede and not have the flotilla sail  Obviously there are ulterior motives in both situation, although we may never know what those motives truly are.

The name Rachel Corrie derives from the 24 year old American woman who, as a member of the International Solidarity Movement – an organization from which she received intensive training on how to interfere with the Israeli Defense Forces, caused her own accidental death when she deliberately used herself as a human shield and knowingly, with malice aforethought, put herself in the path of a bulldozer in Gaza on March 16, 2003.  It is obvious to any rational observer that the sailing of the Rachel Corrie is a deliberate act designed to provoke Israel and create another international uproar.

The ship claims to be carrying humanitarian aid.  Why the need for humanitarian aid?  Gaza is not in need of humanitarian aid: there is no hunger in Gaza, there is no starvation and there are no deaths due to famine.   All one has to do is to look at the data as to what Israel has been sending in the way of food, medical supplies etc. to know that this claim is hogwash. Israel has been sending in 15,000 tons of humanitarian aid per week.  Thus, the flotilla’s contribution to this, at best, is minuscule.  If this humanitarian aid is not getting to the people then one need not look to Israel but no further than to the Hamas government.  Modern history, especially in Africa – Ethiopia comes immediately to mind, is replete with instances of governments, for any number of reasons, not letting humanitarian aid reach their needy.  What one does find in Gaza is Hamas induced tyranny, extremism and endless war.

That the sailing of the Corrie Rachel is a deliberate provocative act can also be seen from the very reasonable offer the Israelis made to the Turkish flotilla and to the Rachel Corrie.  They offered to let the ships dock at Ashdod where the Israelis could inspect the cargo and then turn the true humanitarian material over to the UN to distribute.  Let us not forget that the first obligation of any government is to assure the safety of its citizens.  Yet, the very rational and reasonable offer Israel made was rejected.  No rational reason for this rejection was offered either by the Turkish or Irish governments.

If the real aim was to bring humanitarian aid to the Gazans, then what would be the problem with letting Israel inspect the cargo and having the UN  then distribute anything that I snot contraband?  The aid would be getting to the people they claim are in need of the aid.  The simple fact that they refused this offer is a positive indication that delivering humanitarian aid is not their real aim.  Their real aim seems to be confronting Israel and trying to embarrass it.  The ultimate aim is to demonize and delegitimize the state of Israel and destroy it.

Considering the 60 plus years of continuous warfare by the Arab Moslem nations to obliterate Israel, it should be obvious to any rational human being that the Israelis have no reason to accept the word of anyone that only humanitarian aid is being sent.  What if arms are being smuggled in?  After all, Father Hilarion Capucci, a former Melkite Greek archbishop of Jerusalem, was one of the passengers on the flotilla,   This man of the cloth, this high ranking representative of a religion that claims to be the religion of peace, had been arrested previously for using his church car to smuggle explosives, firearms and katyusha rockets into Israel for the PLO.

Certainly the US is not in any position to criticize Israel, not because Israel is an ally, but because the United States put an embargo on Cuba, an island 90 miles off the coast of the US that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war when the Soviet Union tried to deliver missiles to Cuba..

Also, it should not be forgotten that since 2007, Egypt has its own embargo against materials being shipped to Gaza, for the same reasons the Israelis do, and that the Egyptians have never hesitated to use force against anyone attempting to break it.  Yet, the world never decried their use of force nor accused the Egyptians of having an unjust blockade the way it did Israel.

Israel has no reason to trust anyone, despite all the outcry, when one also considers the Gilad Shalit incident.  Shalit is an Israeli soldier that was kidnaped by Hamas over 4 years ago and is being held  in captivity and denied access to the International Red Cross, an act that is in direct violation of international standards of conduct.  And the world says nothing.  Yet this same world demands that Israel free the flotilla prisoners and even those who waged war against it and killed Israeli citizens.

The political left, the Arab and Muslim worlds and the antisemitic media have demonstrated nothing but sheer hypocrisy in covering these situations.  I have no doubt that this uncivilized behavior will continue. Why?

Because, primarily, underlying all of this hypocrisy and overt manifestation of a double standard is a basic religiously based animosity towards Israel and the Jewish people that is deep in Christian and Muslim culture: such animus is even enshrined in their holy books – The New Testament for Christians and the Koran for Muslims.  To explain the attitude of the self proclaimed intellectuals on the political left is complex and based in part on the interrelationships amongst a variety of historical events which include ideology, intellectual dishonesty, herd mentality, smug arrogance, religion, and several other issues that would require a dissertation to integrate and explain.