Thursday, November 23rd | 5 Kislev 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
January 1, 2017 1:40 pm

Algemeiner Editor-in-Chief: ‘Obama Has Given Incredible Boost to March of Antisemitism’ by Abstaining From Vote on Anti-Israel UN Resolution

avatar by Ruthie Blum

Email a copy of "Algemeiner Editor-in-Chief: ‘Obama Has Given Incredible Boost to March of Antisemitism’ by Abstaining From Vote on Anti-Israel UN Resolution" to a friend
Algemeiner Editor-in-Chief Dovid Efune. Photo: Algemeiner.

Algemeiner Editor-in-Chief Dovid Efune. Photo: Algemeiner.

US President Barack Obama “has given an incredible boost to the march of antisemitism,” the editor-in-chief of The Algemeiner said in an interview on Friday.

Discussing the latest moves by the lame-duck administration in Washington to put pressure on Jerusalem — abstaining in the UN Security Council vote on anti-settlements Resolution 2334, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s subsequent harsh address, warning that Israel cannot remain both a democracy and a Jewish state — Dovid Efune told Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Buck Sexton that such behavior encourages and invigorates the deligitimization and demonization of Israel, both defined as antisemitic by the US State Department.

It is for this reason, said Efune, that Kerry caused such a stir.

“His speech was essentially a glorified attempt to justify the vote at the UN last Friday, which the US — in an unprecedented move — abstained from, angering the Israelis, betraying the Israelis. And I can tell you from where I stand: The mainstream Jewish community in this country is seething, outraged, furious across the board with this stab in the back and, as some have even defined it, a stab in the front,” Efune said.

Listen to the full interview below (Efune’s remarks begin at 37:30):

 

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • jerry goodman

    Jerry Goodman. Dovid Efune could safely be listed as a fear monger, since there is no concrete evidence of a link between criticizing Israeli policies and anti-Semitism. If there are more signs of hostility towards Jews in this country, it may be due to the lifting of the protecting rock by Donald Trump and the resulting scattering of anti-Semites and racists who make up a significant part of our society..

  • 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,”
    The U.S. Congress in 1922
    On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
    “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
    “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
    On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
    Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
    1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE
    JUNE 30, 1922
    HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
    (Rept. NO. 1172)

    Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
    (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
    (2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
    (3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

    “Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:
    His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.
    “If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.
    “I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Muslim religion.
    “In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people. (In January 1919 There was an Agreement signed by King Faisal and Chaim Weizmann and The Arabs/Muslims were allocated over 6,000 sq. mi. of territory after WWI)
    “Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth with a wealth of oil reserves. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.
    “I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.”

  • Joseph Feld

    There has now been some suggestion that the Paris ‘peace conference’ will lead to a rushed UNSC resolution attacking Israel further. Should this situation arise I think we should begin now to raise the proposal of the UK acting on behalf of the incoming US Govt and in line with ‘Balfour 100’ by using the UK veto in the Security Council. If the USA and the UK indeed have a ‘special relationship’ this is the time to prove it. It would also be a response to Obama’s visit to the UK to tell us he would take punitive action if the UK leaves the EU. ‘If you leave the EU you will go to the bottom of the USA list for international trade deals’.

  • tiki

    What’s the surprise? Obama was right on plan!

  • Harry

    Stupid US Jews don’t know their own history and contributed to this rise in antisemitim. Over 70% voted Clinton who Obama vowed ” she would continue my policies”. They didn’t learn from the German Jew experirnce when Hitler came to power, many jews lauded him and contributed to the party. Can you see the correlation? Look at Soros, he says it was great confiscating property from other jews and sending them to their dearh, he supports Obama and Kerry, J street etc… Work it out over there.

  • SAWolf

    The Democratic party is NOT a friend of The Jewish People. When people ask me why so many of us Jews vote Democrat, I reply Stockholm Syndrome, mediated by what FDR did NOT do during WW II.

  • And there are 18-days left, where the U.S. can abstain from any pro-PLO UN Security Council resolutions.

  • Reb_Yaakov

    And what about all the countries that voted for the resolution and didn’t merely abstain?

    As for Kerry’s statement about democracy and a Jewish state, ancient Jewish communities saw no conflict between the two. Their councils were democratically elected and could include non-Jewish residents of their community. However, there was a rabbinic authority who could veto any measures that were contrary to Jewish values, e.g., laws that might tilt the playing field against the poor. But if we look at those communities versus Israel today, we see why Kerry may have been confused. The modern state of Israel calls itself a Jewish state in some ethnic sense of the word, divorced from Jewish principles. True, the politicians cite Jewish values when it supports their cause to do so, but that’s a far cry from being a Jewish state in the correct sense of the word. Reducing Jews to an ethnicity is very problematic and has the potential to lead to the kinds of accusations leveled by Kerry.

    Nevertheless, Israel can have any kind of democracy it chooses. If there are countries in the world whose people are not comfortable with Western style democracy, that’s fine with me, too. I would not consider democracy in the U.S. and in other Western countries to be very successful at all. I think for democracy to succeed a community must have shared values, as in the aforementioned ancient Jewish communities. Otherwise, what we usually observe is the “tyranny of democracy,” in which the majority show disrespect for democratic values such as acceptance of minorities and instead lord it over them.

    Contrary to Kerry’s viewpoint, I would very much like Israel to be a Jewish state, but it’s a far cry from that right now. It must first get rid of the deceit, fraud, lying, materialism, status-consciousness, and valueless underpinnings. To do that, it is imperative that it have Jewish leaders who act as Jewish role models.

Algemeiner.com