web analytics
October 26, 2014 / 2 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Churchill’

Churchill in Jerusalem

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014

Secretary of State for the Colonies Sir Winston Churchill speaking at the ceremony of laying the cornerstone of the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, March 29, 1929.

In early March 1921, the Middle East Department of the Colonial Office issued the following announcement: “Distinction to be drawn between Palestine and Trans-Jordan under the Mandate.”

The British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations—the earlier version of the UN—in 1920, depositing in British hands the recently conquered territory of Palestine, stretching from the Iraqi border to the Mediterranean Sea. The purpose of the Mandate was to make good on Lord Balfour’s 1917 declaration, promising the Jews a “national home” in Palestine.

In less than one year, the British Government decided on that “distinction” thing, cutting off two thirds of the future Jewish Homeland.

It doesn’t look like we minded it a whole lot. We even invited the Secretary for the Colonies to speak at the Hebrew U. cornerstone ceremony practically the day after he cut our dream down by 65%.

We figured, that side would go to the Arabs, our side to the Jews. made perfect sense.

Here, we even honored Sir Winston with planting a tree on Mt. Scopus. It was all good.

chrchill planting tree

Photo credit: Israel State Archive

So how did we end up with that part, across the Jordan River, being one Palestinian State, then Gaza a second Palestinian State, then the Palestinian State Palestinian State, and another 25% of the Jewish Homeland also a Palestinian State.

Aren’t we, the Jews, supposed to be the smart ones?

Why US Policy Betrayed the Moderates

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

In 1848, the new Communist movement issued a manifesto. It began with the opening line:

“A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism.”

For our purposes today, this threat might be reworded as:

“A specter is haunting the Middle East—the specter of America.”

For example, about a year ago Dubai’s police chief addressed a major international Gulf Arab security conference. He said that there were about three dozen security threats to the Gulf Arab countries. But this well-respected security expert said the number-one threat was the United States.

Since that time, this American specter has become vivid. For instance, The New York Times had a recent editorial which stated that the only protection for Egypt’s democracy–meaning Muslim Brotherhood participation in the next Egyptian government–was the United States and Europe. The Egyptian regime, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states were bad for wanting to protect their societies from Islamic ideology, revolution, and anti-Western Sharia states!

Might the United States and its allies rather be expected to battle Turkey, Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Hamas or otherwise might it support Islamists while Saudi Arabia fought Europe’s and America’s response as too soft on Hizballah?

But what if a crazy notion seizes policymakers, blessed with the mush of ignorance about the Middle East, that they can take control of the troublemakers? Perhaps Germany (World War One and Two jihads), or the Soviet control of radical nationalist regimes in the 1950s and 1960, or the French rescue of the Palestinian leadership in the late 1940s, or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran during the 1970s, or America in the 1950s (Arab nationalism), or the 2010 Muslim Brotherhood would turn nominal extremists into friends?

Imagine, dunderheads in Washington, London, Paris, and so on thinking they are masterfully preserving stability, making peace, and harnessing Sharia in the cause of boosting democracy!

How smug would be the smiles when those who perpetrated September 11, 2001, were supposedly defeated by those mentored into power a decade later by the West in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, or in the Arab Spring or the Syrian revolution!

Look at it through the eyes of the Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, and Israelis who think they will try to impose a new order the region?

Consider a famous speech by Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946. In contrast to the Communist Manifesto,100 years later, Churchill began, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain is descended across the continent.” It might be strange that these two statements are compared to the current situation in the Middle East. But actually, they make a lot of sense.

The intention of great powers seemed to impose one (European) system on the region. In the first case, it was Communism. In Churchill’s case, it was anti-Communism he advocated, which in parallel would be Anti-Islamism.

But today, what is the system that Arabs, Iranians, Turks, and Israelis think they will try to impose on the region? The answer for those who have been watching in recent years is revolutionary Islamism.

It might seem strange that this is the thinking, but it isn’t. The question is whether there is a system that Western Europeans want to impose. And the answer is that to the Arabs and others in the region–although this does not mean it has to be true–since the 1979 Iranian revolution, they have supported radical Islamism. In fact, it should be understood that after the Arab Spring, Arabs did not generally identify Western interests with support for moderate democracy, but with support for Islamism.

Incidentally, Churchill’s title was the Sinews of Strength, and he favored policy leading a coalition of the Free world which would be welcome today.

To summarize, in the 1930s, Churchill favored anti-fascism and advocated a united front against Nazi Germany. After World War Two, he supported an alliance of the Free World against the Iron Curtain.

Where is the Churchill of today?

Well, directly his bust was quickly chucked from the White House because he was the symbol for Obama of Western colonialism.

Who was the genuine symbol of anti-colonialism for Obama? The left wing anti-Western revolutionary ideological movement represented by the Muslim Brotherhood or Chavez, and other demagogues.

Obama’s No Churchill

Thursday, November 1st, 2012

A recent dispute between conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer and White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer centered on the Obama administration’s return to the British government in January 2009 of a bust of Winston Churchill, which had been kept in the Oval Office by President George W. Bush following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

A more fruitful discussion would compare the policies and military campaigns of British Prime Minister Churchill and President Obama in the Middle East and North Africa during their respective first years in office. This historical comparison is timely, as last week’s foreign policy debate between Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was primarily devoted to these interrelated regions.

While Obama’s serial failures over the past 45 months in the Middle East and North Africa have been intensively analyzed, Churchill’s outstanding successes in the same regions between 1940 and 1943 are not remembered by the general public in Western democracies.

For example, an Israeli government-sponsored conference on September 21 in New York City, on the more than 800,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries after the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, totally ignored the critical reality that nearly all Jews living in the Middle East and North Africa during World War II survived because of Allied battlefield victories. For three decades after the war, these Mizrachi Jews immigrated to Israel, France, America and other Western countries, and they and their descendants have made many valuable contributions to their new homelands.

Even Obama’s most diehard supporters have not argued that his strategy between January 2009 and October 2012 has been successful in the two regions. The president refused to support the popular uprising in Iran in the summer of 2009 against the Islamic fanatics who have misruled that nation for three decades, and his reliance on diplomacy and economic sanctions to end the Iranian nuclear-weapons program has also failed.

Similarly, Obama’s reactions to the revolutions that have swept across North Africa and the Middle East since their beginning in Sidi Bou Zid, Tunisia in December 2010 (the site of a major American battlefield defeat in February 1943) are aptly summarized as “leading from behind.” The unwillingness to take military action to end the mass killings of civilians by the Assad regime in Syria is another diplomatic fiasco on the part of Obama and his hapless secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

In Iraq, Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not negotiating an agreement with the new Iraqi government to extend the stay of American military personnel who were successfully rebuilding the country’s armed forces.

Further, the president’s dispatch of tens of thousands of Army, Marine and Air Force reinforcements to Afghanistan in 2010 and his simultaneous announcement of their withdrawal in 2012 violated a cardinal rule of war. As General George Patton once pointed out, no commander should allow a pre-existing plan to override battlefield conditions; instead the commander must adjust the plan to the inevitable successes or failures on the ground.

More than 1,500 Americans have been killed in the Afghanistan Theater since Obama’s inauguration as compared to 650 killed there during President Bush’s eight years in the White House.

Finally, on September 11, 2012, our embassies in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and other Muslim countries were attacked by local religious fanatics, and four Americans – Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty – were killed in an assault on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Despite extensive outreach and apologies to the Muslim world, the Obama administration can’t claim the countries of the Middle East and North Africa are more aligned with American interests than they were when the president was inaugurated in January 2009. In short, his “new beginning” with the Islamic world has been an abject disaster.

* * * * *

By contrast, between May 1940, when he replaced Neville Chamberlain as prime minister, and May 1943, when the Mediterranean again became an Allied lake, Churchill was the driving force behind victorious military campaigns from Iran in the east to Morocco in the west.

In September 1940, with the Battle of Britain raging and a Nazi invasion still a genuine threat, Churchill reinforced Commonwealth and Empire forces in Egypt in anticipation of an Italian attack from Libya aimed at the Suez Canal and Middle East oil fields. The expected Italian invasion was launched, but stalled after an advance of just 60 miles into Egypt.

Israel Won’t Attack

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

“You chose disgrace instead of war; you got disgrace and war as well.” (Winston Churchill after the Munich Accords).

Somehow, the common question in Israel today is whether the prime minister has the right to decide to attack Iran. “He has the chutzpah to think that he can decide,” former Supreme Court justice Eliyahu Winograd more or less pontificated, capturing all of the major news outlets’ headlines.

There is only one person who has the right to decide on the Iran issue, and that is the prime minister. It makes no difference at all how he makes the decision, whether by consulting with ministers, advisers or the military top brass – or by plain intuition. The state exists to protect its citizens. Accordingly, the citizens vote for the person who will lead them. They deposit in his hands – in his hands only – that authority and responsibility.

Don’t worry, though. Israel will not attack Iran. For the past two years I have repeatedly written and warned about, and met with senior ministers, in an attempt to explain that the concept of a united international front against Iran is a strategic error. The greatest danger is not the nuclear bomb, but rather Iran’s declared intention to destroy Israel. If Israel doesn’t attack Iran, it reinforces the world’s impression that once again the Jew must pay for the right to live in this world. We are back to the 30s and Hitler’s vicious speeches. The sands in the hourglass of our right to exist are running out. It is no coincidence that Israel’s loss of legitimacy and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declarations parallel each other.

The time to deal with the breach in the dam is when the crack is detected – not when the water surges through. Now, with the question mark over our right to exist hovering over our heads, it is only a matter of history presenting the opportunity for the next diabolical despot – be it Ahmadinejad or any other leader – to carry out his nefarious plans. The principle that allowed the Holocaust to unfold in the early 1940s was determined in the speeches in the Reichstag in the early 1930s. The State of Israel was established to avoid a repeat of the same situation. Its lack of a practical response to Ahmadinejad’s speeches is a betrayal of the purpose of its existence.

Initially, the world expected us to attack Iran immediately. After all, for the past 60 years we have been dragging every visiting diplomat to the Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem. It was a given that Israel would not sit idly by in the face of such blatant threats. But in no time, it turned out that all we were saying to the world was: “Have mercy on us, accept us.” We were not saying, “Be careful of us.” When Israel made the U.S. responsible for its wellbeing, the tables turned. Now, when we face a very tangible threat, the world is willing to only have pity on us.

The situation today is reminiscent of the buildup to the Six-Day War. Then, as well, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol expected President Lyndon Johnson to make good on America’s commitment to Israel after it retreated from the Sinai, promising to intervene if the Straits of Tiran were blocked. There was no “red line.” The line had already been delineated years before. “I can’t find my copy of the document,” Johnson said to Eshkol. Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to force the copy out of President Obama. But he will never find it.

There is a huge difference between then and now. Eshkol had an army eager to fight. He had officers, not politicians in uniform. And he had a citizenry that hurried to dig trenches in the parks; it had not yet been brainwashed by the irresponsible, defeatist media.

As usual, Israel is attempting to solve its strategic problem with a media spin about super weapons that the U.S. may be kind enough to give us – more as a ladder with which to climb down from the tree of declarations than as a true solution.

The strategy of international pressure puts Israel in a hopeless world situation and against its own noisy left wing. The leftists that smelled the lack of leadership in Israel woke up and began protesting. In light of the current situation, the chances that this government will attack Iran are nearly zero. A different Israeli government will have to deal with both the war and the disgrace.

King David Hotel Named One of World’s Top 100

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Jerusalem’s historic King David Hotel is being called one of the top 12 “iconic hotels” and one of the world’s best 100 by Fodor’s.

 

Fodor’s is one of the world’s foremost publishers of English-language tour and travel guide books.

 

This is Fodor’s first Top 100 Hotel Awards, which placed the hotels in one of eight categories: New and Noteworthy, Grande Dame, Casual Chic, Design, Local Flavor, Clubby Atmosphere, Luxurious Retreat, and Trusted Brand.

 

Israel was listed in the “Grande Dame” category, “legendary hotels with superlative history and service.”

 

“The grande dame of Israeli luxury hotels opened in 1931 and has successfully (and self-importantly) defended its title ever since,” Fodor’s said.  “There are other luxury hotels in Jerusalem, but none possess the historical significance and elegant surroundings of the landmarked King David. From the dignified lobby filled with travel guide-toting visitors and diplomats making notes for their next meeting, one can feel the energy of the momentous events that have taken place here. Sit on the flower-filled terrace overlooking the city’s loveliest pool and sip a glass of mint tea while gazing at the stately walls of Jerusalem’s Old City… And when you’re eating the famously excellent breakfast, don’t be surprised if you bump into royalty, world leaders, or rock stars.”

 

The King David hotel was built with the funding of Egyptian Jews in 1931, and was famously attacked by the Jewish liberation fighters of the Irgun in the summer of 1946, when the King David was used by the occupying British as an administrative and military headquarters.  Famous guests at the King David include King George V, former US Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Richard Nixon, British Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, and celebrities Richard Gere, Elizabeth Taylor, and Madonna, as well as then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.   It features 233 rooms, 42 luxury suites, a presidential suite and a royal suite.

 

Other “Grande Dame” hotels awarded by Fodor’s are  Baur au Lac Zurich, Switzerland; Breakers Palm Beach, Florida; Carlyle, New York City; Hotel de Russie, Rome; Hay-Adams Washington, DC; Villa D’Este, Lake Como; La Mamounia, Marrakesh; and The Savoy London, England.

Sir Winston A War Criminal?

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

A British court recently issued a subpoena for the arrest and indictment of Israel’s former foreign minister in response to a petition by Hamas and its supporters in Britain. The court claimed historic precedent for its attempt to indict Tzipi Livni.
 
I have done a considerable amount of research and believe I found, somewhere in the back of my mind while in a fatigue-induced haze, that the court may indeed be correct, as witness this petition to indict a prime minister for war, submitted to the World Court in 1946.
 
To: The International Court of Justice
From: Professors and Other Nice People for Peace and Justice (PONPPJ)

Date: September 11, 1946

Regarding: Petition to arrest and try Winston Churchill
 
We, the Professors and Other Nice People for Peace and Justice (PONPPJ), do hereby call upon the International Court of Justice in The Hague, established last year by the newly formed United Nations, to take immediate steps and seek the arrest and indictment of a war criminal. The Court, as the new institution that has just replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice, must take a moral stand make it clear that ex-Prime Ministers who have engaged in war crimes must be brought to justice.
 
The war criminal in question, Winston Churchill, was until the last election prime minister of Great Britain. Now that he has been replaced, we believe the time is right for him to be arrested and placed on trial if he enters as a tourist any countries that seek peace and justice.
 
To begin with, Churchill is guilty of unspeakable war crimes against innocent German civilians. In battling against German “terrorists” (and let us bear in mind that one man’s terrorist is the other’s freedom fighter), Churchill ignored the fact that masses of innocent German civilians were living in the areas of military conflict. Churchill sent in the Royal Air Force to indiscriminately bomb broad areas in acts of disproportionate response to German provocations.
 
The English had no right to enter sovereign German territory in the first place in response to the bombings of London and other English cities. Churchill should have entered negotiations with Hitler if he really wanted the attacks on Britain to end. After all, one can only make peace with one’s enemies and the Germans had legitimate grievances. The Nazi Party was the legitimate representative of the German people, chosen in open elections.
 
In addition, British land forces infiltrated German territories in many acts of aggression. The violence that resulted from British occupation of the legitimate territories of the German people is understandable. After all, the German people are suffering from British occupation and embargo. Germans are being prevented from using the Suez Canal. The Germans cannot freely import and export arms from the ports in the neighboring countries or from Bristol.
 
Indeed they have been prevented from doing so for years by the British occupation authorities. The anger at this occupation is understandable. The fact that the British ended their earlier illegal occupation of Dunkirk in no way lessens their responsibility for the situation.
 
German activists have been killed mercilessly by British armed forces, which behaved themselves little better than primitive beasts. The German victims were executed by British forces without so much as the benefit of a trial or a Miranda warning. All those nice English words about people being innocent until proven guilty have been forgotten by the British occupation forces.
 
         The British have behaved barbarously in all of this. Numerous German churches and schools have been destroyed in indiscriminate bombings and artillery attacks by the British military. As prime minister of Britain during the anti-insurgency campaign, Churchill bears direct personal responsibility for this. Moreover, an objective panel of experts who served in the commission of investigation into British war crimes in Germany has studied the matter. Led by Judge Oswald Mosley and representatives of General Franco, the commission issued its findings recently, including an unambiguous condemnation of the excesses carried out by the British.
 
Indeed, when it was discovered that Wehrmacht and SS fighters were hiding among the civilian population in Germany, Churchill should have ordered an immediate halt to all bombing and fighting. Instead, he ordered an escalation. The deaths of those innocent German civilians now cry out for justice. Churchill must be held accountable.
 
Churchill should have known the V-2 rockets and the problem of German terrorism cannot be resolved through military action. He should have sought to end the violence by first ending occupation. After all Britain today occupies large swathes of land that properly belong to the German tribe of the Saxons, not to mention territories rightly belonging to Welsh, Irish and Scots.
 
The Saxons are a people deserving independence and self-determination, unlike the English who are nothing more than converted Celt interlopers. The Saxons deserve their own state some place within the British Isles. The English are guilty of having seized land legitimately belonging to the Saxons in a land grab. Those same English refuse to share land and resources, and that is what ultimately led to the buzz bomb attacks on London.
 
Finally, Germans living inside Britain have been victimized and have suffered from racial discrimination. Britain obstinately refuses to release from prison the peace activist Rudolf Hess. German-Brits and British Saxons have complained of being targets of surveillance.
 
Meanwhile, the suffering on the continent is directly attributable to the selfishness, racism, and obstinacy of Britain under Winston Churchill. As the occupying power, Britain bears responsibility for any violence that takes place in its areas of control.
 

Signed, Professors and Other Nice Peace for Peace and Justice (PONPPJ)

 

 

Steven Plaut is a professor at Haifa University and makes no claim of authenticity for the document cited above. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted at steveneplaut@yahoo.com.

Cockburn’s Cockroaches

Wednesday, February 16th, 2005

There was a time when the Left in the United States was able to field its own intellectual heavyweights to try to offset opposing intellectual arguments. It was a Left of Michael Harrington and Irving Howe and others of similar caliber.

That Left is no longer in existence. The Left in recent years has shown itself incapable of distancing itself from its lunatic fringe. Rational leftists long ago abandoned the Left, resulting in a Left now filled with treasonous lunatics and hate-America neurotics whose politics reflect little more than an infantile anger at Mommy and Daddy.

There is today no difference between the academic Left and the Left of Mumia Abu Jamal and Ward Churchill. Churchill’s statement that Americans killed in the attack on the World Trade Center were “little Eichmanns” is by now familiar to all, although that’s just the tip of his iceberg of his anti-Americanism (see www.frontpagemag.com).

Nothing so clearly illustrates the demise of the “intellectual Left” than the self-recruitment of the stable of writers at “Counterpunch” magazine on behalf of Churchill.

In recent weeks, Counterpunch has morphed into almost a single-issue magazine, and that single issue is celebrating and defending Ward Churchill. This is not a “free speech” defense of Churchill by free speech absolutists, but rather an endorsement of the contents of Churchill’s anti-American and pro-terror speeches and articles by people staunchly opposed to free speech for neoconservatives.

Counterpunch is a web magazine owned and edited by Alexander Cockburn, whose anti-Americanism can compete only with his anti-Israel animus (some have called it out-and-out anti-Semitism), and Counterpunch largely promotes these two sentiments on its pages. Cockburn has been denounced for both his anti-U.S. and anti-Israel views by Franklin Foer of The New Republic, by Eric Alterman (on his MSNBC weblog), and by a variety of other journals, organizations and columnists, including the Seattle Times, the Declaration Foundation,, LeftWatch, and Christian Action for Israel. In the past Cockburn openly gave credence to reports that Jews spread anthrax in the U.S. and that Israel was part of a conspiracy to topple the World Trade Center. Cockburn insists Jews conspire to control the media (see http://counterpunch.org/alexgraham.html).

There is nothing that so clearly illustrates the collapse of thinking on the American Left as its near-universal embrace of Ward Churchill. Every “Indymedia” website in the country has carried multiple endorsements of Churchill. Cockburn’s Counterpunch has, as I write this, more than a dozen articles endorsing Churchill, and not a single article denouncing him.

Of all the leftist magazines and websites usually regarded as semi-civilized, Cockburn’s web magazine seems to be the most obsessed with glorifying Churchill, who has written, among other filth, that the Jews are worse than latter-day Nazis because “those who deny the Holocaust, after all, focus their distortion upon one target. Those [Jewish scholars] who deny all holocausts other than that of the Jews have the same effect upon many.” Churchill also supports Islamofascist terror (see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16917).

Earlier this month Cockburn himself led the flock of Cockburn Cockroaches in Counterpunch with “Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs” (http://counterpunch.com/cockburn02052005.html), in which he not only backed Churchill unreservedly, but argued that Churchill did not go far enough. When Churchill wrote that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were heroes, given America’s evil nature, he should have reinforced his article with references to America’s bombing of Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991, with 400 deaths, Cockburn argued. Never mind that no one seriously thinks the U.S. intentionally targeted civilians in that or any other bombing operation, unlike Churchill’s role models.

Cockburn maintains that the whole outcry over Churchill is some grand right-wing conspiracy to suppress free speech. “Why,” he asks, “should Churchill apologize for anything? Is it a crime to say that chickens can come home to roost and that the way to protect American lives from terrorism is to respect international law?”

This hardly is the first time Cockburn’s web site has come out in favor of bin Laden. Earlier, it ran a piece by Shahid Alam, a tenured professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston, titled “Poverty From the Wealth of Nations.” Alam argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the attackers believing that they are fighting – as the American revolutionaries did in the 1770′s – or their freedom and dignity against foreign control of their lands.

A companion piece to Cockburn’s was “A Ward Churchill Kind of Day” by Kurt Nimmo, (http://counterpunch.com/nimmo02052005.html), which compared the attacks on Churchill and on some other pro-terror professors to the Nazi purges in German universities. Nimmo wrote, “I must say that I agree with Churchill: the financial and government institutions housed in the WTC, including the CIA, most certainly did employ “technocrats” comparable to Adolf Eichmann.”

He was echoed by Carolyn Baker, who, in “Ward Churchill and the Attack on American Higher Education” (http://counterpunch.org/baker02072005.html) compared at length the criticism of Churchill to Nazi suppression of dissident teachers in Germany. She bemoaned insufficient leftist indoctrination on campuses in the U.S. and concluded by writing: “The neo-conservative, neo-fascist standard for higher education is a mirror-image of German education in the 1930′s…”

In “The Censorship of Ward Churchill and Dancehall Reggae Music,”  (http://counterpunch.org/collins02082005.html), Counterpunch’s Nate Collins characterized any criticism of Churchill as fascist censorship, writing: “What happened to the classic quote on the Nazis about how they go one group at a time until they get you?… I love Churchill for the same reason I love Dancehall Reggae artists, they have the voices of lions, regardless of any flaws jumped on by the p.c. liberal thought police.”

In another Counterpunch piece, “What Ward Churchill Didn’t Say,” by one “Mickey Z.”, (http://counterpunch.org/mickey02092005.html), Churchill is defended against the true terrorists, which include, in Mickey’s “mind,” Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger, Bill Cosby, and others, most of whom are misquoted by Mickey.

Counterpunch proves better than anything else around that the term “thinking Left” is today an oxymoron in the United States.

Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at Haifa University. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted at steven_plaut@yahoo.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/cockburns-cockroaches/2005/02/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: