If only one major newspaper in its review of former President Barack Obama’s “A Promised Land” ignored his anti-Semitic revisionism, it could be ignored. But when The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Guardian ignore it, something is amiss.
Obama writes the British were “occupying Palestine” when the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. However, he ignores that the victors after World War I, in the San Remo agreement of 1920, awarded the Jewish people “in close settlement” Judea and Samaria.
In 1922 the League of Nations ratified the British Mandate which mentions “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” In 1946, the United Nations in Article 80 ratified the actions of the League of Nations.
By omission, Obama implies there was not a scintilla of international consent for a Jewish state.
Also, Obama writes “the rise of the (PLO)” was a “result” of the Six Day War. The PLO was formed in 1964 when Israel existed within the 1949 Armistice Lines. By connecting the Six Day War with “the rise of the PLO,” Obama implies the post-1967 situation in Judea and Samaria was the reason for the PLO’s existence. Unfortunately even Obama cannot make 1964 into 1967.
Why are reviewers at major newspapers willfully blind to anti-Semitic revisionism? Do they all agree with Obama because they all live and work in the same anti-Semitic bubble?