Doc's Talk: The Anti-Israel Mentor of Obama's Interim Chief of Staff

Friday, December 10, 2010

The Anti-Israel Mentor of Obama's Interim Chief of Staff

Moshe Phillips

When Rahm Emmanuel resigned as President Obama’s first Chief of Staff on October 1, 2010 an almost unknown Washington insider named Pete Rouse was chosen to take Emmanuel’s place. Little has been reported about Rouse. When the White House blog first mentioned him it explained “Rouse's disinclination towards the limelight” in the first sentence. Perhaps Rouse has wanted his 30-year relationship with Jim Abourezk, the most anti-Israel Senator in American history, to go unexamined. Rouse had been Tom Daschle’s Chief of Staff and worked for him as far back as 1985. It has been reported that Daschle first met Rouse when they both worked as legislative assistants for Democratic Senator Jim Abourezk. The official White House website bio on Rouse leaves Abourezk completely out of his personal history. Nothing of Rouse’s formative, pre-1979 history in politics is mentioned at all.

There are deep ties between Obama, Rouse, Daschle, Abourezk and George Mitchell. Even before November's Midterm elections, these men have shown that they will work together to create new pressure against Israel that will make the previous challenges in the U.S.-Israel alliance look like a love fest. The JTA wire service reported on November 2, 2010 that “President Obama's new chief of staff … Pete Rouse … spoke Oct. 28 in a conference call with an array of Jewish leaders.” Northing of the content of the call was reported. That this call happened on the Thursday immediately before the Midterm elections cannot be understated.

Robert Chandler in his September 2008 book Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam labeled Abourezk “a senior advisor for presidential candidate Barack Obama”.

Former Senator, J.G. Abourezk

James George Abourezk has never met an anti-Israel conspiracy theory or an anti-Zionist conspiracy theory he didn’t like.

It is easy to conclude that Abourezk and the many other notorious Israel-bashers that the Obama camp has included from the outset may have had more to do with Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, the June 2010 $400 million dollar aid package for PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, the Administration’s overall confrontational attitude towards Israel and more.

In 1977 Congressional Quarterly described Abourezk as “a former bartender, rancher and used car salesman among other things.” (Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Volume 35, 1977)

Abourezk was the first elected U.S. senator of Arab descent. His ethnic background is Lebanese Christian, the same as Helen Thomas and George Mitchell. He served just one term from 1973 to 1979.

Former Senate Leader Tom Daschle joined DLA Piper as a Senior Policy Advisor in November 2009. DLA Piper is one of the largest law firms in the world and has offices in at least 30 foreign nations and is made up of approximately 3,500 attorneys. Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell is the firm's immediate past chairman. President Obama named Mitchell as United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace just two days after taking the oath of office.

Mitchell was no unbiased participant in the Arab-Israeli conflict. His history included chairing President Clinton’s Middle East fact-finding committee. The committee published a report on April 30, 2001 (Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report or Mitchell Report) calling for the Israel to cease building in Jewish Settlements. This was something that Abourezk actively championed in the Senate in the 1970s.

Abourezk has anti-Israel extremism has only intensified since he left the Senate.

Abourezk was a founder of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). The Anti-Defamation League calls CNI “an anti-Israel organization that opposes U.S. aid to Israel and disseminates demonizing propaganda about Israel to academics, politicians, and other audiences.” Today Abourezk still sits on CNI’s 11 person board of directors.

He serves on the twelve-person Board of Advisors of the Free Gaza Movement with Noam Chomsky and other hardcore anti-Israel extremists. The Free Gaza Movement was in large part responsible for the Gaza flotilla incident in May 2010.

In 1980 Abourezk founded the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). A September 21, 2010 ADC press release declared:

(ADC) is proud to announce that it will be hosting a gala in honor of the great Helen Thomas. The gala will take place Thursday, November 18, 2010, at the Washington Marriott … Washington, DC 20008. ADC invites members and friends to join in the celebration honoring Helen’s dedicated service to our country as a journalism trailblazer, and her legendary front row coverage of the White House for over sixty years.

In 2008 Abourezk keynoted a protest against AIPAC led by Chicagoans Against Apartheid in Palestine.

Here are some of Abourezk’s statements from the last several years:

March 6, 2008:

(I)n the face of outright slaughter of Palestinian civilians by Israel. "The candidates for president -- with exceptions like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney -- bow and scrape to Israel and continue to support its objectives. They unfortunately back the continued funneling of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money for Israel, allowing it to continue its brutal attacks.

December 4, 2006 (pdf):

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May-June 2007, pages 23-25:

Another part of the Zionist propaganda that lingers to this day is the myth that the Jewish armed forces were able to defeat a superior combined Arab army.

The monstrous tragedy of the European Holocaust during WWII became a bonanza for the Zionist movement and its leaders.

January 26, 2007, Christian Science Monitor:

(T)he Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into a dangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles its sabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions – and alleged pursuit of nuclear arms – while remaining silent about Israel's nuclear-weapons arsenal.

April 17, 2006:

(T)he U.S. government designates resistance fighters – such as Hizbollah and Hamas – in the Middle East as terrorists if Israel asks us to do so…

Just how close was Abourezk to the Obama campaign?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an editorial attributed to Dateline D.C. on Sunday, February 10, 2008 that said, “It is said that the godfather of the Obama campaign is James George Abourezk.” Moreover the Tribune-Review article even revealed that “Obama readily accepted Abourezk's naming as their mutual contact a former staff member, Tom Daschle.”

Did Abourezk introduce Rouse to the Obama team?

Why has the story of the Abourezk/Obama/Rouse relationship gone unreported since 2008?

© Moshe Phillips

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Moshe Phillips is the president of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com. Moshe's blog can be found at http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com and Moshe tweets at http://twitter.com/MoshePhillips.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk