November 19, 2007, - 3:46 pm

Condi’s Redlining & Restrictive Covenant: U.S. Says “No Jews Allowed to Live Here”

By Debbie Schlussel
You’d think that Condi Clueless a/k/a Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be sensitive to redlining and restrictive covenants. You’d think that someone who is familiar with old school policies in some neighborhoods and businesses of “No Blacks Allowed” would be against “No Jews Allowed.”
But you would be wrong.
Today, if there were signs up–or even secret policies–of neighborhoods not allowing Jews or Blacks to live in a certain neighborhood or to build a new home there, the Justice Department would be on their rear ends like Rosie O’Donnell on a slice of pizza.

condoleezarice.jpgnojewssign.jpg

But, in Israel, well . . . the U.S. has a different policy. And Clueless Condi is the chief architect and enforcer of the Nazi-like Judenrein policy.

No Jews Allowed. No Jews Allowed. Just what part of No Jews Allowed didn’t you understand?

That’s the policy Clueless Condi is shouting at Israel, these days. You’d think a woman of color would be sensitive to–no, outraged by–bigoted real estate policies.
But you would be wrong.
In fact, she’s the chief perpetrator. She’s demanding it and pressuring Ehud Olmert to stop allowing Jews to build and own homes in the so-called “West Bank” (but no corresponding requirement of Arabs and Muslims to stop building and buying homes in Israel), in advance of the dumb Bush last attempt at a Nobel Peace Prize a/k/a The Annapolis Conference, next week.
Meanwhile, in exchange for the pleasure of acquiescing to the Condi-demanded bigoted housing policy, Israel gets the privilege of . . . releasing 441 murderous terrorists into the general population?! GUH-Reat deal. It’s the kind of deal they gave Jews in the concentration camps, wherein they could turn in their fellow Jew to his/her death in exchange for a piece of bread.
Yup, the next time you hear Condi Rice talk about how she’s “risen above racism,” don’t believe her hype. She’s not only not “risen above” it.
She’s perpetrating it. That it’s in a different parcel of land makes no difference.
I suppose this is supposed to be an improvement from the signs that were once posted, “No Jews or Dogs Allowed.”
The dogs have elevated their status. The Jews, not so much.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses

[Today, if there were signs up–or even secret policies–of neighborhoods not allowing Jews or Blacks to live in a certain neighborhood or to build a new home there, the Justice Department would be on their rear ends like Rosie O’Donnell to a slice of pizza.]
Or how about denying illegal aliens to live in certain neighborhoods? That’s what’s going on here. The US’s long-standing policy has been to deter Israeli Jews from building in Palestinian territory so that Palestinian sovereignty is not threatened. Rice’s policy is no different than the greatest US president ever in the conservative mind:
RONALD REAGAN!
[NB: TOTALLY WRONG. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS. ISRAEL CAPTURED THE LAND IN A WAR. ARE THE U.S. CITIZEN RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS ILLEGAL ALIENS? BY YOUR AND LA RAZA’S AND MECHA’S LOGIC, YES, BUT NOT IN REALITY. AND MOST OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS LEGALLY PURCHASED. ARE YOU SAYING THAT SAUDIS WHO OWN REAL ESTATE ACROSS AMERICA ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS WITH NO RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY? APPARENTLY, YOU ARE. SO, I THINK I CAN NOW HAVE KING ABDULLAH OF JORDAN’S CHEVY CHASE MANSION AND PRINCE BANDAR OF SAUDI ARABIA’S COLORADO SPREAD. RIGHT?
AS FOR U.S. POLICY ON SETTLEMENTS, THE U.N. SPECIFICALLY APPROVED OF SETTLEMENTS, WITH THE COOPERATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE U.S. EUGENE V. ROSTOW SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE–ALLOWING AND EVEN ENDORSING SETTLEMENTS–AND HE’S TALKED ABOUT IT SINCE. AND RONALD REAGAN WAS FINE WITH IT, TOO. THE ONES WHO DISAGREED WERE JAMES BAKER, AND MADELEINE HALF-WIT, AND NOW CONDI CLUELESS. BUT, HEY, THREE WRONGS–AND THREE WHO SUPPORT REDLINING–DOESN’T MAKE A RIGHT. DS]

Norman Blitzer on November 19, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Perhaps Ms. Rice should be asked if black Jews would be allowed there.
chsw

chsw on November 19, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Condi Clueless becomes Racist Rice.
O/T
Debbie, this event might interest you.
http://www.clas.wayne.edu/multimedia/usercontent/File/Center%20for%20Peace%20and%20Conflict%20Studies/muslim%2011-30-2007.pdf
It’s called, “Strengthening America: The Civic and Political Integration of American Muslims.”

Bomb Bomb Iran on November 19, 2007 at 5:42 pm

The jihad loving anti-Jew Detroit Counsel for World Affairs is sponsoring the above mentioned presentation. Alan Gale of the Detroit Jewish Community Relations Counsel is on the board from what I hear.

Bomb Bomb Iran on November 19, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Annapolis is scary, and Debbie is exactly right. I am also struck by the lack of similar comments as far as I know, by any of the presidential candiates, Republican or Democrats. I expect this of the Dems, and of Romney, Thompson and McCain, but Guliani has prestigious adivsors who presumably know better. If he does not comment, it indicates that these advisors are just for show, and cannot be expected to influency policy if he is elected. I think this is like the immigration battle; the only way to affect the outcome of events like Annapolis is lots of pressure. Although I would like to see this happen, and get results more favorable to Israel, I am not very optomistic..

c f on November 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I never, ever saw anything special about Condi Rice. She could speak gobbledegook. She’d make a pronouncement that made no sense and everyone would say what a brilliant black woman she is. I never found her to be articulate. I guess she’s Colin Powell in a skirt. I’m not saying she’s NOT bright but wow, talk about affirmative action! She is no better than Madeline Albright. She “went native” so quickly at the State Dept she must not have had any substance to begin with. Counting the days.
Of course, it doesn’t help to have a self-hating moron in Olmert who is asking Condi how high she wants him to jump.

lexi on November 19, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Condi was an “expert” on Russia. Maybe she knows something there, but she’s certainly clueless about the Middle East. This is very dangerous.
Condi’s “peace” agreements are suicide for the state of Israel. This isn’t entirely Condi’s fault, of course. I really thought President Bush knew better.

barrypopik on November 19, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Condi and Bush are tools of global jihad. What they are doing in the west bank is “dispossessing” the jews of territory they won in battle against the islamo-vermin. And Israel, led by mental dwarf Olmert, is allowing it to happen same as they did in Gaza. This is almost identical to the Bush/Rice “MO” being implemented in the Balkans where they are trying to railroad through Kosovo independence under muslim rule which will mean another jihadist state like the one they are trying to establish in the west bank, the dispossession and extermination of the remaining Serbs, Jews and Romas in Kosovo and the destruction of all historic Christian religious sites in the province.
Bush is merely acting out a charade in Iraq and Afghanistan where he allows the persecution of our combat troops for doing the job they were sent to do, undermines the morale and combat effectiveness of our fighting forces and is basically destroying our military?
He chooses to be very destructive to the free world and Rice is one of his policy tools.

joesixpack31 on November 19, 2007 at 11:07 pm

[AS FOR U.S. POLICY ON SETTLEMENTS, THE U.N. SPECIFICALLY APPROVED OF SETTLEMENTS, WITH THE COOPERATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE U.S. EUGENE V. ROSTOW SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE–ALLOWING AND EVEN ENDORSING SETTLEMENTS–AND HE’S TALKED ABOUT IT SINCE. AND RONALD REAGAN WAS FINE WITH IT, TOO.]
This is what Reagan initially said about the settlements:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42911
“The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”
I don’t know if Reagan changed his mind after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, but his original plan seems pretty close to what Rice is trying to do in regards to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. In fact, when Israeli PM Begin heard this from Reagan, his reaction was:”It is the saddest day of my life”.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/reaganplan.html

Norman Blitzer on November 20, 2007 at 12:53 am

With Bush and his “toadies” trying to transform free sovereign territories and nations into islamo “shitholes”, with the empty suites competing for the republican nomination and with the stable of “stalinist whores” running for the demo nomination, the United States and the free world are in a lot of trouble.

joesixpack31 on November 20, 2007 at 1:26 am

And did you know that some US official thinks that the road map obligation that the Pals. stop terror is a “tyranny”? http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2007/11/game-plan.html

Yisrael Medad on November 20, 2007 at 6:11 am

Posted by: lexi at November 19, 2007 07:47 PM
I really thought President Bush knew better
Ofcourse President Bush knows better. He just works for trhe enemies.. How else do you explain:
– Increased “aid” to Saudi Arabia.
– Prosecuting Border Patrol agents.
– Increased student’s visas to Saudi Arabia.
– Increased arms and aid to Pakistan.
– Refugee visas to Muslims.
– blcoking pages in 9/11 commission report.
– escorting Bin-Ladens out of USA.
Add add all of the above and sure President Bush knows how to cheat Americans into voting for him, and THEN stabbing them in the back. Ohm and as for Saudi Arabia, the wannabies pocked the Bush family way before George was “elected”.
Wish American voters knew better.

Alert on November 20, 2007 at 6:51 am

Norman–
I know that invoking Reagan is supposed to excite conservatives, but there are those of us on the right who realize that his reputation has grown beyond all reason, mostly based on who followed him, and who preceded him!
Anyone could have looked great after Jimmy Carter, and before Bush I and II and Clinton. And, it sure didn’t hurt that Eastern Europe fell on his watch, either.
To use an analogy familiar to any guy who studied science or engineering–
Reagan is like that ordinary looking girl in your class who becomes gorgeous in comparison to the rest…
(The good looking chicks usually were in liberal arts.)

Red Ryder on November 20, 2007 at 9:27 am

There are reports that Sec. of State Rice has made comments to friends that she empathizes with the plight of Palestinian Arabs because their restriction of movement reminds her of the U.S. Civil Rights Struggle. I think it is VERY useful to point out to her that the PA hanging a “No Jews Allowed” should remind Ms. Rice of the U.S. Civil Rights Struggle far more than the rational and justified security measures being taken by Israel. I can certainly see why you call her “Condi Clueless”.
Unfortunately, Condi is not clueless. She is empowered by a Saudi Petrochemical lobby that has thrust Orwellian semantics down the throats of Americans such that (in the words of David Horowitz):
>Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that elects its leaders in free elections and guarantees rights to its citizens, and honors
those rights. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to be fighting for ìhuman rights.î There are about a million and a half Arabs living
as citizens in Israel who elect representatives to Israelís parliament and who have more rights than the Arab citizens of any Arab state.
Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to be fighting for ìsocial justice.î Israelís very creation is referred to by its Arab enemies as “the Nakba”, or the ìcatastrophe,î the clear implication of which is that Israel should not exist. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to support self-determination and oppose genocide. Israel was the victim ñ at its very birth — of an unprovoked aggression by five Arab monarchies and dictatorships. It has been the target of an Arab war that has continued uninterruptedly for nearly sixty years because the Arab states have refused to make peace. Yet Israel is the target of those who say they want ìpeace.î Israel is the victim of terrorist attacks ñ suicide bombings ñ which along with the Jews they mark for extinction, kill Palestinian women and children as well. Yet Israel is the target of those who claim to speak for humanity and a future that is ìfree.î<
In a world void of anti-Semitism, the War Against Israel could not possibly exist. Condoleeza Rice knows this, but is paid to rationalize otherwise.
Condi Rice isn’t as clueless as we think. Follow the money!

There is NO Santa Claus on November 20, 2007 at 9:30 am

She is a Bushie, and no good can come from her. That’s about it. On the other hand, I am a Jew and I wholly support a Palestinian state. The British had no right to establish a “state” for people in a place where they were not wanted. And the Amreicans were wrong for taking over the responsibility. The whole concept of creating a Jewish state just because it (a “state”) exists for other religions and never did for Jews before is a mistake. I am not a self-hating Jew, but if 2,000 years ago some indigenous people lived in my backyard,and disappeared for the next 2,000 years, and suddenly some gov’t comes out of the blue and drops people into my backyard, and tells me I have no right to kick them out-I am going to fight like a rabid dog to get them the hell out. And whether they’d been there in the historical past makes no difference.

jeff on November 20, 2007 at 10:42 am

Jeff–You need to study the historical demographics of the region. Today’s “Palestinians” are not indigenous for the most part. They are Jordanians. They migrated TO Israel once the Israelis made the land attractive.
The Arabs have succeeded in rewriting history.

lexi on November 20, 2007 at 10:55 am

Here we go again. Our state department throwing Israel under the bus. Thanks, but no thanks, Condi.
A little note: The word “Palestine” came into use circa AD 135 by Rome. The people who where there at the time Palestine became Palestine where mostly Jews. It was six to seven centuries later before Muslims had any measureable influence or control of “Palestine”.
So the real Palestinians are Jews (ie: Israelis).
C’mon, Condi, you’re a PhD. Didn’t you study any of this in college?

Lawrence on November 20, 2007 at 3:30 pm

What is doubly ironic is the tremendous boom in any area of the so-called ‘west bank’ where there was Jewish settlement all the way through the 90’s till Arafat ‘loosed the dogs of war’ and ‘cried havoc’.

poetcomic1 on November 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Jeff,
Your ancestors did not just disappear from the region. They were either marched out in chains or driven off at the point of a sword.
If your theory that whomever holds the ground owns the ground, then right now Israel owns the ground… and like you said, it doesn’t matter what history says… except when, as you say, it does matter.
The Irony is that Israel has offered time and time again to help set up a separate Palestinian state yet the Palestinians that refuse. Bottom line is that Palestinians don’t want a state they want a war. And a war is what Israel is giving them, so why mock Israel for defending itself?

Lawrence on November 20, 2007 at 4:31 pm

In the 1860’s, the Ottoman territory which became Mandatory Palestine was visited by Mark Twain. In his book, The Innocents Abroad, he described the region as a desolate, depopulated wasteland for the most part. Its estimated population was 160,000. Significant Jewish populations were found in Safed, Jerusalem, and elsewhere, and these Jews had been a continuous presence in the region (considered part of Syria) for millenia.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the influx of Jews from Europe increased, and these Jews purchased tracts of land from absentee Ottoman landowners, paying exorbitant prices; these lands, mostly marsh and desert, were considered worthless by the Turks. Employing scientific and technological prowess learned from the West, coupled with sheer determination, the new Jewish settlers developed the land and promoted prosperity. Arabs moved into the Jewish areas and benefitted from employment and improved living standards, thanks to the Jewish pioneers. Before the defeat and demise of the Ottoman Empire, however, the Ottoman Turks uprooted many Muslims from within their empire, including numerous Slavic Muslims from the Balkans, and forcibly relocated them to Palestine so that the Jews would not become a majority in the area. While European Jews were allowed to buy wasteland from the Muslim Ottomans, Ottoman Jews were prohibited from doing so. It must be re-emphasized that many – probably even most – Palestinian Arabs have been living there since the late 1800s, and do not have ancient roots there, contrary to what is commonly believed. Remember- one hundred and fifty years ago, the entire Arab population of Palestine was reckoned to be less than the capacity of three Shea Stadiums.

commonsense on November 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm

You can’t be a nice guy and still have a country. You have to choose sides and EXCLUDE some people, because if you try to have a melting pot, some people will inevitably exclude YOU. Trying to be inclusive, in this country and elsewhere, is allowing your enemies to take over your own home.
If you want to have a viable Israel or USA, you have to choose who’s on your team, and who isn’t. Countries have always been built by racists and haters, not by a bunch of damn lovers and rainbow coalitions.

steve ventry on November 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Let’s just eliminate all the muslims and take all the oil. Splitting hairs and negotiating with incorrigibles is a COMPLETE waste of time and diverts us from doing what has to be done. Quit being afraid of being radical, it’s what is called for today.

steve ventry on November 20, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Madam Secretaries Mission Statement:
Transitional Diplomacy:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/59339.htm
Hands-On Practice. Diplomats will not only be analyzing policy and shaping outcomes, but also running programs. They will be helping foreign citizens to promote democracy building, fight corruption, start businesses, improve healthcare, and reform education. [Segregated Housing acording to race, gender and religion.] (oops! I think I improvised that last one.)
I agree with much of the comments here. Except with all said I still find Madam Secretary smart and articulate. And I am biased because as a result of the afore mentioned and personal criteria I find her to be SEXY even still. To be fair though I think John Bolton should have been Secretary of State.
As far as bringing in her skin color and civil rights comparison analogy. When will you white people ever figure it out. Look at Oprah. She goes to S.Africa. Opens a school for girls only, no less, and she implements every rule and regulation in the book that she herself would sue and scream bloody racism against whitey. Black race is a diff. topic though. But I’m saving a smile for the whiteman when he’e confronted with his mistakes in apeasement worshiping.
I’m of the school that the Israeli’s built that land from nothing and it was occupied by no one. They have shed blood to keep what they built and the scum buckets want to steal their piece of someone else’s pie with no work of their own. Why? because they just want to destroy and use it up then demand more and try to take more because you gave them too much already.
Oh, Sexy Condi works for Bush. I didn’t see anyone name a better person for the job. With Pelosi making her own visits I don’t see who you might pick. I hear they are having a hard time finding diplomats to work over their.

ArloRay on November 20, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Condi sexy?? She looks like she’s been sucking on lemons or has a bug up her behind. Uptight woman.

lexi on November 20, 2007 at 11:51 pm

I see that today, re the New York Sun, some of the Republican candidates have made half-hearted comments about Annapolis. Thompson made a very weak denunciation of Palestinian terrorism, although excluding Fatah; the others seem to be concerned mainly by the lack of responsive Palestinian “institutions”. I thought the problem was terrorism, not a lack of institutions. The more institutions there are, probably the more terrorism there will be. Maybe that’s why they have all these advisors — to dream up these weird positions. It would never have occurred to me to think that the problem in the Mideast is the lack of Palestinian “institutions”:.

c f on November 21, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field