Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Iran and the Relevance of Purim

Iran and the Relevance of Purim

By Joseph Puder 

As Jews worldwide and especially in Israel, celebrated the holiday of Purim (lots) last week, a sense of deja vu was in the air. Contemporary affairs evoked echoes of the text read by Jews in the Scroll of Esther. Haman, the Persian “Prime Minister,” under the Emperorship of Ahaseurus (presumed to be Xerxes I, King of Persia and Media) set out to annihilate the Jewish people in and around 337 BCE. Haman convinced Ahaseurus to endorse an edict permitting him to commit genocide against the Jews in the Persian Empire, a form of the Final Solution to the Jewish question in those days. The reading of Haman’s call to eliminate the Jews is an eerie reminder to Israeli Jews of how some things have not changed. The recent president of Iran (formerly Persia), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had a similar call to “wipe the Jewish State off the map.”

While Ahaseurus was made to understand that he had made a mistake by his beloved wife Esther, he could not reverse his decree. He therefore permitted the Jewish people to defend themselves against those Persians who had set out to kill the Jews by engaging in what we refer to today as a pre-emptive attack.

Today, unlike the time of Esther, Mordechai, and Ahaseurus, there is no Iranian leader that would stop the genocidal threats against Israel, or refrain from propagating anti-Semitism in Iran. In fact, the Iranian Supreme Leader himself, Ali Khamenei, is plotting the very demise of the Jewish state. Deliverance for today’s Jews will not come from a benevolent Iranian leader, nor will it come from the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama. Rather it will come, as in the days of Esther, in the form of a pre-emptive attack; one that will capitalize on the vulnerabilities of the Khamenei-Rouhani regime.

Iran, much like Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, is not a homogeneous society. Close to 50% of Iran’s population of 76.4 million (as of the end of 2012) is non-Persian. They include ethnic minorities such as Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Turkmen, Arabs, and Baluch. The Islamic Republic of Iran under the Ayatollahs fostered discord and enmity in dealing with its diverse ethnic minorities. This will impact the regime’s ability to mobilize for war with Israel and the West should the interim agreement between the six world powers (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) and Iran, signed in November, 2013, fail. 

Under the interim agreement, Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program in return for relief from some sanctions. The sanctions relief commenced in January, 2014, but it is still unclear as to how much of the nuclear program the Iranians have “rolled back” or are willing to roll back. According to Wendy Sherman, a senior State Department official and lead negotiator for the U.S. on the interim deal, any final agreement will be contingent on Iran taking concrete and verifiable steps to prevent it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yet, the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi charged that the “[h]alting of Iran’s nuclear program and dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities are not on the agenda.”

The delusional Western powers will learn soon enough that Tehran is simply buying time until it can produce a nuclear weapon. Israel cannot wait until that happens. However, a singular Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran will only delay the Iranian nuclear program. What the free world, and the U.S. in particular, should strive for is regime change. Removing the dangerous “messianic clerics” of Tehran from power and creating a multi-ethnic democratic Iranian regime is the wish of not only the oppressed ethnic and religious minorities (Sunni-Muslim, Christians, Bahai, and Jews) in Iran, but also the dream of the educated Persian middle-class that has been devastated by the Islamic Republic. 

The Sunni-Muslim Baluch in southeastern Iran have taken up arms against the regime of the Ayatollahs, as did the Sunni-Muslim Kurds in north-central western Iran, and the mostly Shiite Arabs known as Ahwazis (named after the capital of the southwestern province of Khuzestan).  

Israel’s Arutz Sheva reported on December 18, 2013 that “[t]hree members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) have been killed in a roadside bomb in Iranian occupied Baluchistan according to the Iranian media.” Earlier in October, Baluch rebels killed 14 Iranian border guards. In retaliation, the Iranian regime hanged 16 Baluch fighters. Baluch rebels also gunned down a public prosecutor and his driver in the city of Zabol. 

The Baluch struggle against the Iranian regime for an independent Baluchistan has resulted in an upswing in Tehran’s severe oppression and discrimination against the Sunni Baluch. Western Baluchistan was annexed to Iran in 1928. Since the fall of the Shah, the Ayatollahs have forbidden the use of the Baluch language, and have targeted the region for deliberate economic neglect and discrimination in employment. Serious fighting between the Baluch nationalists and the IRGC erupted in 2006.

The Kurds, a much larger minority in Iran, have given the Tehran regime a great deal of trouble. The Iran-based Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) began fighting the IRGC in 2004, after Iranian security forces fired on Kurdish demonstrators, killing 10 people. In 2014, PJAK was the only Kurdish group still waging an armed struggle against the Iranian regime. According to Rudaw, Iranian Kurdish youth were “disappointed with the traditional Kurdish parties fighting the Tehran regime, because they left Iranian territory in the 1980’s to take refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan.” One such party was the Freedom party of Hussein Yazderpana (this writer hosted him in New York City). These parties that moved to Iraq were forced to renounce attacks against the Iranian military and the IRGC to avoid reprisals against Iraqi Kurdistan thereby creating a vacuum that was filled by the PKK-related PJAK. 

Vera Eccarius-Kelly, a researcher on Kurdish Diaspora and Professor of Comparative Politics at Siena College in New York, suggested that “Iran’s brutality has provided the PJAK with a level of legitimacy among young Kurds, but the current thaw in relations between the U.S. government and the Iranian regime signals an extremely difficult future for the Kurdish fighter in Iran.”

In April 2005, the tensions between Ahwazi Arabs and the Tehran regime boiled to a head with the leak of a memorandum from the office of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran that set forth a policy aimed at changing the ethnic makeup of Khuzestan province. Ahwazi Arab demonstrators took to the streets of Ahvaz to protest the memorandum. Over the course of the next two weeks, the protests quickly spread through major cities and towns in the rest of the province and the Iranian government reacted with brute force. The Ahwazis responded by taking up arms and attempting to assassinate Iran’s then-president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Ahwaz.

There is a saying in Hebrew that translates to “not every day is Purim,” and an understanding that miracles do not occur twice the same way. The miracle in our modern time will be the uprising against the Islamic regime in Tehran by the minorities who together, with the economically and politically repressed Iranians, will no longer endure the Hamans that rule them. The educated Iranian people are pro-American, even pro-Israel, and they seek a more democratic society – a free and less corrupt economy, unlike the one that is currently dominated by cronies of the regime and the IRGC. Nepotism and corruption on one hand, high unemployment and inflation on the other, are causing rising frustration among the young people of Iran.

The gist of the Purim story is the pre-emptive strike by the Jews against Haman and his cohorts. This time, the miracle would be a coordinated pre-emptive strike by the Iranian people and the Israeli Air Force that will destroy the regime’s assets, but would leave most Iranian people safe, and ultimately free.  

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/iran-and-the-relevance-of-purim/

Ya’alon Should Tell the State Department to Go to Hell

Ya’alon Should Tell the State Department to Go to Hell

Ronn Torossian

The American State Department has the gall to ask Moshe Ya’alon, the Defense Minister of Israel, for an apology? With endless American pressure being placed on the sovereign state of Israel, the U.S. wants the Defense Minister to apologize for telling the truth? Doesn’t America have bigger foreign problems today than this?

Amazingly, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday that “We still have remaining concerns about Ya’alon’s pattern of behavior,” adding, “I think we clearly expressed our displeasure by his offensive comments and an apology would be a natural next step.”

What was Ya’alon’s offense? During a speech at Tel Aviv University, he said that America “shows weakness” in various arenas around the world, including Ukraine, and has a “soft” approach to Iran’s nuclear program. He said that Obama’s “image in the world is feebleness.”

Can anyone with a straight face in America – Democrat or Republican – say that Ya’alon is wrong? In January, Ya’alon was criticized for calling U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry “messianic” for his fervent pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He was right then, and he is right now.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the Zionist prophet, wrote an article in 1911 that is perfectly relevant in response to the State Department’s request for an apology:

We constantly and very loudly apologize… Instead of turning our backs to the accusers, as there is nothing to apologize for, and nobody to apologize to, we swear again and again that it is not our fault… Isn’t it long overdue to respond to all these and all future accusations, reproaches, suspicions, slanders and denunciations by simply folding our arms and loudly, clearly, coldly and calmly answer with the only argument that is understandable and accessible to this public: ‘Go to Hell!’? We are hated not because we are blamed for everything, but we are blamed for everything because we are not loved…

We may apologize only in rare, unique and extremely important moments when we are completely confident that the Areopagus in front of us really has just intentions and proper competence. We do not have to apologize for anything. We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change and we do not want to.

Moshe Ya’alon: Thank you for telling the truth. As an American, I ask the Obama Administration: have you apologized to all of the countries that have been harmed because of your foreign policy disasters?

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/03/24/ya%E2%80%99alon-should-tell-the-state-department-to-go-to-hell/

WE WERE PALESTINIANS ONCE… AND YOUNG

WE WERE PALESTINIANS ONCE… AND YOUNG


JEWISH TRANSCRIPT ARCHIVE REVEALS A TIME WHEN PALESTINIAN MEANT JEWISH
Peacenik

Seattle’s JTNews, formerly known as the Jewish Transcript has begun digitizing the newspaper’s archives, making the historic folios available to the public online.  Currently there are twenty assorted years of publication featured, dating from their first issue in 1924 through 1971. Browsing through the old papers, one is  struck by the quality of the publication in its early years. Each edition contained about eight pages, chock full of detailed and relevant articles relating to the  minute details of local synagogue doings to the rebuilding of the Jewish homeland to the grave stirrings of war and impending disaster in Europe.

One is struck in the Transcript of the 1920′s-40′s  by the palpable investment in the well-being of the Jewish people that is embedded within every page. There is an excitement in the articles about the Jewish project in Zion. Announcements of Zionist speakers arriving from Palestine were given much coverage as were reports of Arab terror and Jewish struggles. The paper acted as an advocate for the Jewish nation and fiercely lashed out at anti-Semitism in Europe and here in America. Perusing the 1930′s editions it is clear that the editor was starkly
aware of the danger facing the Jews of Europe and was clanging  the warning bells with as much might as could be mustered.
Pal 2

Perusing the paper from the dark days before US involvement in World War II one finds that while much has changed, much has remained the same. Even as the Transcript documented atrocity upon atrocity heaped upon our  desperate European brethren, an article from 1938  tells of  prominent American rabbis  opposing US intervention against the Nazi death machine.  The pacifistic religious leaders declared their renunciation of war declaring “never, will I support another”.  The significance of the word “never” would carry an entirely new meaning just a few years later (as in “never again”).  This historic news story was especially jarring as it came just a few months after  Kristalnacht when the Nazis stated intentions had already translated into tangible horrors.

Transcript articles in the days before the formal creation of the State of Israel focused extensively on the plight of Palestinians. But almost to the one, when referring to Palestinians, the Transcript was referring to Jews. For example one article referred to Palestinian Jewish hero Hanna Senesz as the ”Palestinian parachutist” and another publicized an upcoming “Palestinian” themed Purim festival to be held at Seattle’s Herzl Congregation.  The Arabs residing under the Ottomans and later the British mandate almost exclusively self identified as Arab.
Pali1a

Please do explore the Jewish Transcript archive, especially the editions from the 1920′s through the 1940′s. You will be impressed by the professionalism, quality of  content, prescience (and occasional quirkiness) of Seattle’s Jewish newspaper when it truly was the “Voice of Jewish Washington”.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, March 24, 2014

Abbas' son: Peace talks are futile, one-state solution only peaceful resolution to conflict

Abbas' son: Peace talks are futile, one-state solution only peaceful resolution to conflict

Tareq Abbas says his father should abandon peace talks, dissolve PA, force Israel to take over West Bank.

Ynetnews

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' youngest son Tareq told the New York Times on Tuesday that he believes peace talks with Israel are futile and that the one-state solution is the only peaceful way to resolve the conflict.

Like many Palestinians, Tareq objects to extending the US-led peace talks, and believes his father should turn to international organizations instead, asking them to recognize the Palestinian state.

In addition to that, Tareq told the Times he believes his father should dissolve the Palestinian Authority and force Israel to take full responsibility for the West Bank.

Related stories:
Palestinian negotiator: No peace talks beyond April
Abbas will ask Obama for settlement freeze, more prisoners freed
At White House talks, Obama urges Abbas to take risks for peace


"If you don’t want to give me independence, at least give me civil rights ... That’s an easier way, peaceful way. I don’t want to throw anything, I don’t want to hate anybody, I don’t want to shoot anybody. I want to be under the law," he told the Times.

Tareq is very critical of Israel, and does not believe it will allow for a Palestinian state to exist.

The 48-year-old businessman, vice president of the Arab Palestinian Investment Company, stopped believing a two-state solution was possible two years ago when he got fed up of Israeli limitations on the West Bank.

"I believe (the Israelis) have 30 genius people, they meet every morning and there is only one topic on the agenda: how to make the life of the Palestinians miserable today," he said. "And they always surprise us, by the way. We always say, ‘How can it get worse?’ They do surprise us."

In conversations with his son, the PA president tries to convince Tareq that the two-state solution is the only possible solution to no avail. However, Tareq says, while he expresses his opinion, he is not offering advice.

"I don’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ Who am I to tell him this? Even as a father I can’t talk to him like this, you want me to say to the president like this?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4500850,00.html

Zionism is moral and necessary

Zionism is moral and necessary


Gideon Levy of Ha’aretz, like Abbas Zaki of Fatah, comes out and says what he thinks, no matter how ugly. Here he asserts that Zionism is Naziism:
This kind of talk could only take place in darkness; in beer cellars, at violent fringe demonstrations or at the headquarters of outlawed organizations. Only the extreme, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and xenophobic right would dare to breathe a word of it. Only skinheads and their masters would dare to speak of national purity and of defining their country based on ethnicity, religion, race, nationality or heredity.

No one would dare to say France for the French, America is all-American, Germany is a German state or Italy is a Catholic one. Anyone who did so wouldn’t be considered credible. These countries are democracies of all their citizens; their character is determined by the components of the entire population. Living in each are minorities, their numbers growing in this era of globalization and migration. No one speaks of a nation-state, of a state of one religion, of one racial group. …

This time it’s not the goyim’s fault, it’s Israel that yearns to live in a ghetto. It’s an old-new obsession, and history laughs its bitter laugh. The new Jews, the Israelis, embrace the methods and the standards of the Nazis, may their name and memory be erased. The Israelis check their bloodlines and then put them in a ghetto. …

It’s “no entry” to Middle Eastern culture, to Arab art and history, to African asylum seekers, to anyone who isn’t a Jew. Every Israeli knows the mantra “a Jewish state,” but it’s doubtful anyone knows what it means. Is it a halakha state run in accordance with Jewish law? Is it a theocracy with no civil marriages, no public transportation on the Sabbath and a mezuzah on nearly every doorpost?

That’s a Jewish state. And would Israel be non-Jewish without these traditions? Would it be non-Jewish with 50,000 asylum seekers and Jewish without them? We haven’t yet decided whether Judaism is a religion or a nationality, or even who is a Jew. The main thing is that we want a Jewish state, the kind Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will recognize forever.

Some of my correspondents think I shouldn’t waste time on such as Levy. But he raises some issues that are highly relevant to today’s diplomacy in a clear way (and he’s just as clearly wrong about them).

He asserts, first, that nationalism must be fascism. This is a poor argument which depends on a conflation between civil rights and national expression. Full civil rights for minorities — voting and representation, all state economic benefits, the same degree of freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. as the majority, are generally recognized as something a national government is required to provide. National expression — a flag, a national anthem, even a dedication to the preservation of a particular group and its culture, is not necessary for life and is not automatically due to everyone in a diverse society.

The Nazis, of course, systematically deprived Jews and other ‘undesirable’ groups of their civil rights, including the right to life. Israel, on the other hand, is committed to providing full civil rights to all of its citizens, while it defines itself as the state of the Jewish people. The difference is immense.

Not only is a Zionist state morally acceptable, it is necessary: in the case of some ethnic groups, particularly the Jews, the world’s nations have historically denied their civil rights. One of the driving forces of Zionism has been the unhappy fact that Jewish rights cannot be guaranteed exceptin the framework of a Jewish state, one whose reason for being is in part to ensure that these rights will always be preserved. Norwegians are welcome to create non-nationalist states with open borders if they wish, but this would be a poor choice for Jews.

The existence of a Jewish homeland also protects Jewish rights in other nations, by diplomatic action, rescue, or conceivably by military force. Could an ‘Israel’ — or whatever it would be called — “of all its citizens” perform this function? How long could such a state even keep its Jewish majority?

Levy notes that it is not easy to define ‘Jew’, nor to determine the proper amount of influence to give to religious institutions and values. All this is true, but so what? Just because it’s hard to provide a simple definition of something does not imply that the concept isn’t meaningful. And even a decidedly pluralistic state like the US has trouble defining who are members of minority groups (something Americans obsess about) and finding an appropriate place for religion.

“No one would dare say France for the French…” says Levy. He’s wrong. Marine Le Pen heads the third-largest party in France, and she talks exactly that way. In the halls of the Left she’s called a fascist, of course, but almost 18% of French voters preferred her in 2012, compared to Nicolas Sarkozy (27%) and François Hollande (29%). 6.4 million French citizens are not Nazis!

Le Pen’s success is partly a reaction to the practical problems that result from almost uncontrolled immigration. Levy also seems to think that tiny Israel can be a solution for an unlimited number of refugees from dysfunctional African states, but even Europe can’t do that.

Finally, Mahmoud Abbas also wants a nation-state, for the ‘Palestinian people’. It’s pretty clear that, like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there would be no Jews in ‘Palestine’. The proposed constitution for Palestine states that “Islam is the official religion of Palestine.” I have never heard Levy or anyone else on the Left object to this, or compare the Palestinians to Nazis. Even the usual concerns for human rights (don’t forget women, gays, etc.) are elided where the Palestinians are concerned.

The Left’s vision of a borderless world in which every nation is a “democratic state of all its citizens” is being tried now, in Europe, and it is failing badly, economically, socially, and — most important — demographically, with native fertility rates far below what’s needed for the society to survive. Israel’s Jewish fertility rate is a healthy 2.8, well above the replacement rate of 2.1. Perhaps Israel’s social and economic vitality has something to do with the national pride and religion that still exist there, despite what is written in Ha’aretz?

Without Jewish nationalism, that is, Zionism, there would be no Israel, and no reason for one — which is why psychopathic Jew-hater Gideon Levy advocates against it.

http://fresnozionism.org/2014/03/zionism-is-moral-and-necessary/

Hillel Donor: Outrageous for Organization to Support Arafat Grave Visit

Hillel Donor: Outrageous for Organization to Support Arafat Grave Visit

"There is no more justification for visiting the grave of a 'retail Holocaust purveyor' like Arafat any more than there would be of a 'wholesale Holocaust purveyor' like Eichmann."

Hillel donor Jeffrey Wiesenfeld was outraged to hear that Harvard Hillel supported a trip that honored terrorist Yasser Arafat.

It’s deeply disappointing to say the least.

Even if there were peace, there is no more justification for visiting the grave of a "retail Holocaust purveyor" like Arafat any more than there would be of a "wholesale Holocaust purveyor" like Eichmann.

That said, it is outrageous that such Jewish people have no self-respect. If they did, they would demand reciprocity from our enemies – recognition, elimination of incitement, punishment of terrorists – before extending again and again their unrequited “hand of friendship.”

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillel-donor-outrageous-organization-support-arafat-grave-visit


Sunday, March 23, 2014

The State Department’s Campaign Against the ‘Jewish State’ Idea—in 1954

The State Department’s Campaign Against the ‘Jewish State’ Idea—in 1954

Rafael Medoff

Secretary of State John Kerry, pictured here with Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, last week called it a “mistake” to continue to ask for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in efforts to reach a peace agreement. Photo: State Department.

JNS.org – Secretary of State John Kerry’s remark last week that it is a “mistake” to insist that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state brings to mind a little-known episode in the early 1950s, when the Eisenhower administration briefly embraced the notion that Israel should stop identifying itself as a Jewish state.

The key figure in this unusual chapter in U.S.-Israel relations was a young U.S. Army officer named Henry A. Byroade, who in 1952 was picked by President Harry Truman to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, although he had no Middle East-related experience or education.

According to a previously unpublished interview with Byroade in the files of the Truman Presidential Library, in Missouri, the president summoned Byroade for a discussion in late 1952, shortly before he left office. “I was very critical of both the policies of Israel and our policy towards Israel,” Byroade recalled. “And he outlined his view[s] for me, which really were very surprisingly similar my own. I left there extremely encouraged that we would get White House backing for what I called an even-handed, balanced policy position between both Arabs and Israel.”

Bryoade reasoned that if Truman, who had received considerable Jewish support, was ready to back away from Israel, then his successor Dwight Eisenhower, who had much weaker ties to American Jewry, would be even less supportive of Israel. And he was right.

In April 1953, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett visited Washington and got a first-hand taste of how Byroade was reshaping U.S. policy. Byroade demanded that Israel make territorial concessions to the Arabs, and threatened Sharett that the Eisenhower administration would present “our own peace plan,” which Israel might not like.

On the same day Byroade met with Sharett, two leaders of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism (ACJ) met with President Dwight Eisenhower. The Council had provoked tremendous controversy with its lobbying in the 1940s against creation of a Jewish state. What is not widely realized is that even after Israel was established, the Council continued its activities and, in fact, had even more impact on U.S. policy than previously.

ACJ officials Lessing Rosenwald and George Levison urged the president to consider American Jews a purely religious group with no obligations to Israel. They also denounced the idea of American Jewish immigration to Israel and said the Israelis should become “Middle Eastern” like their neighbors. Levison came away from the meeting convinced that Eisenhower was “in general agreement with our views.”

Afterwards, they visited the State Department and delivered a memorandum making the same points. Assistant Secretary Byroade took the memo with him when he accompanied Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to Israel in May. Parts of the ACJ memo found their way into a landmark Mideast policy speech, ghostwritten by Byroade, that Dulles delivered in June.

Dulles vowed to improve relations with the Arabs, said the U.S. would not become “a backer of expansionist Zionism,” and proposed that Jerusalem be ruled by “the world religious community,” and not be Israel’s capital. Challenging Israel’s identity, Dulles declared that Israel “should become a part of the Near East community and cease to look upon itself… as alien to this community.”

Jewish leaders hoped the speech did not represent a shift in U.S. policy, but those hopes were soon dashed. When the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Abba Eban met with Dulles in October, the secretary ticked off a lift of demands that Byroade had prepared for him: Israel must “re-examine its policy of encouraging large-scale immigration,” refrain from counter-terror raids, and “bear her share of the Arab refugee burden.”

By the spring of 1954, Byroade was ready to go public. Sixty years ago next month (on April 19, 1954), in an address to the World Affairs Council, in Dayton, he called on Israelis to “look upon yourselves as a Middle Eastern state, rather than as a headquarters… of a world-wide grouping of people of a particular religious faith.” He also demanded that Israel “drop the attitude of the conqueror” and halt what he called “retaliatory killings.”

Then, with the approval of Secretary Dulles, Byroade delivered the keynote address at the ACJ’s annual convention, in Philadelphia on May 1. His public association with the anti-Zionist group appalled Jewish leaders.  And what he said at the conference was even worse.

Byroade repeated his demand that Israel become “a Middle Eastern state.” He targeted Jewish immigration to Israel as a central obstacle to peace, asserting that Israel’s calls for “greatly expanded immigration” convinced the Arabs that it was planning “a future attempt at territorial expansion.”

The Israeli government filed an official protest against the “unjustified interference in matters which are purely Israel’s own concern.” American Zionist leader Emanuel Neumann blasted “Byroadeism” for “negating the hopes and dreams and the religious emotions of countless generations.” In a dramatic demonstration of Israel’s commitment to aliyah, keynote speakers at 19 different government-sponsored Israel Independence Day events throughout Israel the following week focused their remarks on the need for increased immigration.

The Eisenhower administration stood by Byroade and his comments. But the controversial policy he was shaping soon withered in the face of Arab intransigence. As Byroade discovered during his subsequent stint as U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Arab leaders such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser could not be appeased by Israeli concessions on immigration, territory, or refugees. Their unflinching refusal to accept Israel’s existence made it impossible for the Byroade line to be maintained as America’s Mideast policy in the years to follow.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is co-author, with Chaim I. Waxman, of the Historical Dictionary of Zionism.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/03/20/the-state-department%E2%80%99s-campaign-against-the-%E2%80%98jewish-state%E2%80%99-idea%E2%80%94in-1954/