Any two-state solution would require two engaged parties would it not? That is the flaw in such a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Only one side truly desires peace, the other desires nothing of the sort. David Harsanyi offers up these thoughts
When we act like both sides are equally culpable, the longstanding position of the United States — which is better than the longstanding position of most European nations, which place the entire culpability on Israel — we feed the problem. For one thing, we pervert our own ideals when supporting “peace deals” predicated on one side’s demand that their new state be cleared of Jews. It’s certainly what we do when we allow the United Nations to pass resolutions that maintain the presence of Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem is an “occupation.” (How inconsiderate of King David to provoke a yet-to-exist monotheistic faith that was 1,500-plus years from conquering his city, and around 2,800 years away from discovering Palestinian nationalism.)
David Friedman, the new Israel ambassador (a position that doesn’t hold much sway over policy), has called Palestinian statehood an “illusion.” When grilled on the subject during his Senate hearings, he explained: “I have expressed my skepticism solely on the basis of my perception of the Palestinians’ failure to renounce terror and accept Israel as a Jewish state.” This would be an entirely accurate assessment.
Yet this moral clarity has made Friedman unacceptable for many Democrats. New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez, who sounded like some anti-Semitic McCarythite, went as far as demanding Friedman assure the committee his loyalty to the United States.
Many of the intractable disagreements that exist between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are driven by the inability of one side to come to terms with history. Palestinians will not have control over Jerusalem proper. There will be no “right of return.” Palestinians will not control their borders as France controls its borders — at least not any time soon. That’s because, in the end, no sane, civilized nation would help create a dangerous illberal state next door. Two events this week remind us how premature it is to .
Oh John F(ool) Kerry. He is a national disgrace on an epic level. His speech, hopefully his last as Secretary of State, was nothing more than a slap in the face to Israel, and all freedom loving people across the globe. He turned a blind eye to the evil acts of Hamas, of course, and shows his unwillingness to place the blame for the Palestinian/Israeli divide where it belongs, on the Palestinians. The fact is this. If it were up to Israel, there would be peace. The Palestinians could have their own state. And Israel would be their best friend. But, that is a fantasy. The Palestinians largely do not want peace, Hamas does not want peace. They want Israel wiped out. That belief is even laid out in Hamas’ charter. The reality is this, every time Israel has made concessions, including removing settlements from Gaza, they have been repaid by rocket attacks and terror attacks. But, Kerry the fool ignored all of that and blamed Israel and offered up a statement so demeaning as to earn Kerry a special place in Stupidville
Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”
What? Is Kerry saying that being Jewish is somehow incompatible with democracy? No, not really As Andrew McCarthy notes very well, Kerry is showing his true feelings
Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.
As McCarthy points out the constitutions of Iraq, and Afghanistan, which the United States had a significant hand in drafting both name those nations as Islamic, and protect religious minorities. Can a Jewish state not accomplish the same thing? That is what Kerry is saying. As McCarthy notes, religious minorities, including Muslim minorities, are not granted those rights in practice in Islamic democracies. He also points out that where we DO see such tolerance and protection of religious freedom is in the nation of Israel. But, facts, apparently are inconvenient things for both President Obama, and his right-hand buffoon, John Kerry. This is the alternate reality of the Left, the United Useless Nations, and Team Obama. So why is Obama, and the Left so insistent that Israel, the nation that truly desires peace and practices tolerance and freedom must change to appease those that do not? Ben Shapiro explains
Obama’s animus for the state of Israel stretches beyond the typical internationalist leftist view of Israel as a colonialist outpost, a cancer growing in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. Most internationalist leftists think that Israel is the cause of Muslim ire, that if Israel were to disappear, suddenly the Muslim lands surrounding it would view the rest of the world with fresh, dewy eyes. This is the same general philosophy that blames the West for the problem of Islamic violence, that suggests that income maldistribution breeds discontent that in turn breeds terrorism
So, why does Obama despise Israel, he is a Leftist, every major influence in Obama’s life has been a Leftist. And, Shapiro believes that Obama, like other Leftists simply has no use for “others”
Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization. He breaks down Bible believers into two categories: fools and liars. The fools are the “bitter clingers,” the idiot masses who fall into racism and xenophobia and Bible jabber because they’re poor and stupid. The liars are the self-interested characters who want to do what they want to do while citing the Bible for their support.
That is highly plausible no doubt. I would argue that the main issue with Obama and Israel boils down to pretty much the same thing every disagreement that Leftists have with those that support traditional Western values boils down to, Collectivism vs Individualism.
The West values individual liberties to varying degrees. Israel, like America honors a commitment to allowing gender equality and religious freedom. Such commitments align with the ideology of Individualism. The ideal that certain rights are inherent to people and that such rights are given by a Creator, or at the very least are simply part of every human. Such an ideology limits government, and that is simply intolerable to the Left, which is Collectivist.
To the Left, rights are to be defined, and controlled by the State. And Islamic governments, abiding by Sharia Law, is, like Communist governments in that individual liberties are non-existent. Even nations that commit atrocities, or that persecute its own people are therefore given a pass by many on the left. Any fault with such governments are ignored by the Left because Collectivism, that is the controlling of rights by the State, must never be challenged or questioned. Sadly, because of their ideology of Collectivism the Left views nations, like Israel, and the United States as bigger obstacles to a better world than they do radical Islam.
The Muslim extremist who attacked rookie cops with a hatchet last week was “a crusader seeking justice’’ — and more assaults will likely follow, the head of his local New Black Panther Party warned.
“It probably won’t be the last [attack on police] because you have a lot of frustrated people out here,” Queens chapter leader Frank Sha Francois told The Post.
Francois said ax-wielding Zale Thompson wasn’t officially a member of his group, but he came to meetings and they talked about “police brutality” cases such as Eric Garner and Michael Brown.
“I don’t condone violence, but something needs to be done,” Francois said. “We need to have some type of deterrent and real oversight to deter the police from violating the laws and to know they are not above the laws.
Just so we all understand what the Black Panthers, and Nation of Islam are really about. At their heart, they are groups that despises America, people who are different from them, and yes, they should be considered dangerous. One day, one, or more of these thugs will attempt “justice seeking” and a CHL holder will give them justice. When that happens look for all Hell to break loose unless our authorities begin to deal with these thugs as they deserve, as violent criminals. The fact is that there are terrorists here already. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection lays out what is going on in Ferguson Missouri right now. And yes, this will spread like a cancer if we do not stamp it out. If you do not believe me, meet Bassem Masri
While no one knows if there will even be an indictment of Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown, leaked evidence including an autopsy report raise the possibility there will be no indictment.
If that happens, the streets will be on edge, and it will not take much of a spark to set the city on fire worse than ever before.
As much tension as there is, an underreported story is the active role of “pro-Palestinian” activists who have exploited the Ferguson riots and tension this summer and fall to push their anti-Israel agenda. That anti-Israeli agenda, which involves encouraging confrontation with police in solidarity with Palestinians, is helping provide the accelerant to an already volatile situation.
It started with a propaganda campaign over the summer when Brown was shot. On Twitter and elsewhere, anti-Israel activists started tweeting messages of “support” for protesters in Ferguson,including advice on how to deal with tear gas.
But there is one anti-Israel activist who actively is trying to provoke a confrontation between protesters and police, even taunting police in crowd situations about losing their guns and hoping they die.
We can clearly see that the mainstream media is on the side of Gaza, purporting unproven Palestinian propaganda as fact.
With proof that Gaza is fudging the number of civilian deaths, Israel stands alone against a world that believes the IDF is to blame for dead Palestinian women and children.
Even more so, Israel has spent centuries defending her right to simply exist (millennia if you count Biblical texts).
However, even looking back to 1948, Israel has been a constant target of her Arab enemies, which make up more than 600 times the size of the only Jewish state in the world.
Still, Hamas and Palestine supporters spew unfounded “history” as reason for the destruction of Israel. So, we have a few questions for these anti-Semitics. Perhaps one day someone can answer them:
If you are so sure that ” Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :
* When was it founded and by whom?
* What were its borders?
* What was its capital?
* What were its major cities?
* What constituted the basis of its economy?
* What was its form of government?
* Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
* Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
* What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
* What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
* What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
* And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over – or thrown out of – the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza , respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” – or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?
If any Palestine supporter even made it through half of this article before getting mad and exiting, there’s still a slim chance they can factually answer even one of these questions.
The anti-Israel sentiments of the academic Left are no secret to those who have paid attention to the climate on university campuses for the past decade. In a sense, this situation is a leftover from the Cold War, when the Left supported Soviet-backed Third World “liberation” movements from Cambodia to Angola to Nicaragua. When Israel fought two wars for its survival in 1967 and 1973, it fought against enemies armed with Soviet weapons, and Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization was also a Soviet client. (For a useful synopsis of this history, see David Meir-Levi’s 2007 article, “The Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror.”) Left-wing activists at American universities shared the Soviet view of the Mideast as a Cold War battlefield that pitted the oppressed Arabs against the Jews, who were demonized as proxies of Western capitalist imperialism.
The Kremlin’s cynical opportunism — its willingness to aid any potential enemy of the United States — extended so far as to include support for radical Islamic extremism, despite the dogmatic atheism of the Soviet Union’s Marxist ideology, and this attitude explains the American Left’s willful blindness toward the anti-democratic tendencies of Islam: The Left has never abandoned its Soviet-influenced Cold War belief that “world peace” obligates progressives to embrace any anti-American movement anywhere in the world.
The Other McCain has more of the history at the link. Here is what the Students for Justice in Palestine actually did
On the morning of April 24th, 2014, Jewish students that live in the Palladium residence hall of New York University (NYU) awoke to quite a shock. Slinking quietly through the night, members of NYU’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) had distributed mock eviction notices to students in this dorm (which is known across campus as one with a high concentration of Jewish residents, and is the only NYU dorm with a Shabbat elevator), listing distorted facts and with the stated purpose of “ draw[ing] attention to the reality that Palestinians confront on a regular basis.
One Jewish resident of Palladium and Steinhardt Sophomore, speaking anonymously told me, “Being very straightforward, this made me feel targeted and unsafe in my own dorm room and I know others feel exactly the same as myself. I understand free speech rights but if this was targeted solely to Jewish students then this appears to be of a more threatening nature rather than informative.” This move by NYU’s chapter of SJP comes on the heels of a similar campaign run by SJP at Northeastern earlier this year, which in addition to their “years of anti-Semitic vandalism, glorification of terrorist groups and calls for the destruction of Israel” resulted in a one-year suspension of their organization (Ilya Feoktistov, March 2014). Students for Justice in Palestine, which claims to work towards “bringing attention to the plight of the Palestinian people,” is a radical group founded at UC Berkeley in 2001 with financial ties to the internationally recognized terrorist group Hamas.
The fact that SJP is linked to Hamas? The fact that SJP was kicked off campus at Northeastern University? The fact that SJP’s faculty adviser at Northeastern bragged “that anti-Israel activism on campus has made pro-Israel students afraid to speak out”? Khalek can’t be bothered with these facts, which expose the truth that SJP is a terrorist-supporting group that uses brownshirt tactics.
[A]n excellent article by Russell A. Berman in the Los Angeles Review of Books, which recently hosted a forum debating the BDS movement against Israel. Berman’s piece is one of several contributions opposing BDS, and towards the end of his extremely knowledgeable and well-argued critique, he points out that there is reason for concern that the antisemitism that “is part of the international context in which the debate about Israel rages on” is also affecting the debate in the US. As an example Berman cites an article by Khalek published in the The Electronic Intifada in late 2013, where she “criticized an allegedly pro-Israeli perspective at The Nation through the tried and true anti-Semitic tactic of counting the Jews among the staff writers and, not surprisingly, determining that there were too many to her taste.” According to Berman, the reaction to Khalek’s piece “from the progressive camp was closer to silence than outrage, indicating a willingness to give anti-Semitism a pass, as long as it has the correct political credentials.” Khalek’s Electronic Intifada piece is entitled “Does The Nation have a problem with Palestinians?” She argues there — if this is what it can be called — that the Nation’s coverage of the BDS movement was dominated by the voices of Jewish writers. Dismissing the fact that “the majority of pieces in the latest debate were in favor of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS),” Khalek goes on to complain that “when it comes to Israel and Palestine, The Nation habitually reinforces Israeli apartheid by privileging Jewish voices over Palestinian ones.” According to Khalek, it is also ridiculous to believe that “four Jews and one Palestinian” could provide a “diversity of views,” as the Nation’s editor and publisher had claimed.
There are too many Jews at The Nation, according to Rania Khalek. There are also too many Jews in Israel, according to Rania Khalek.
This raises the question: What is the appropriate number of Jews anywhere, according to Rania Khalek?
The ugly face of the fanatical anti-Israel crowd exposed.
Good Freaking Grief! Canada and the US are both free nations, and unlike “Palestine” a legitimate nation. Also, Mr. President Canada and the United States get along because like Israel we are peaceful. Those Palestinians? Not so much. The problem is not dialogue it is the terrorists in Hamas who have sworn to destroy Israel. If Israel is left alone, there will be peace, and that is the only way there will be peace.
The slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” can be heard regularly from the shores of the Gaza Strip, emanating from members of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The river represents the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean – both sides of Israel. Essentially, this means the destruction of Israel.
Khaled Meshaal, the global head of Hamas, stated something similar, when he made his historic visit to Gaza this month. He said, “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north.” Just one week previous to that, the leader of another Islamist group, Cyrus McGoldrick, repeated the slogan on Facebook and Twitter. Except he did not state it from the Middle East, he made it from the United States.
McGoldrick is the Civil Rights Manager and spokesman for the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR-New York. The national organization of CAIR was founded in June 1994 as a part of the umbrella group created by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. [Today, Marzook is the number two leader under Meshaal.] As well, CAIR was named a party to Hamas financing by the U.S. Justice Department for two federal trials against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). CAIR had asked people to donate money to the terrorist HLF charity via CAIR’s national website.
When fighting broke out between Hamas, who was firing hundreds of rockets into Israeli civilian neighborhoods, and Israel, who was responding to the Hamas fire by targeting terrorist infrastructure, McGoldrick didn’t flinch as to which side he was supporting. On November 12 on Twitter, he wrote,“Gaza under attack for the last few days. May G-d protect them [Hamas] and grant them victory.” Just two days earlier, McGoldrick had attended a CAIR banquet in Tampa, Florida. Just one day earlier, he had praised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
On November 15, McGoldrick tweeted, “Palestine is a land occupied by foreign settlers. They [Hamas] have the right to resist, to defend themselves, ‘by any means necessary.’”
Islamist pig. Why does our government allow this group to operate here?
The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations. It was not created out of Palestinian lands, but rather out of the Ottoman Empire, which had been ruled for 400 years by the Turks who lost it when they, fighting alongside Germany, were defeated in World War I. There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians, but rather simply Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine.
It was only after World War I that the present states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were also created – also out of the Turkish Empire by the British and French victors. Jordan was created on about 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate, which was originally designated by the League of Nations as part of the Jewish homeland. Since then, Jews have been prohibited from owning property there.
In 1947, a UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining 20 percent of the Palestine Mandate: the State of Israel for the Jews, and another state for the stateless Arabs. But the rulers of eight Arab states did not want a non-Arab state anywhere in the Middle East. Thus they rejected the UN arrangement and simultaneously launched a three-front war of annihilation against the newly created state of Israel — on the very day of its creation in 1948. Israel begged for peace and offered friendship and cooperation to its neighbors. The Arab dictators rejected this offer and answered it with a war, which they ultimately lost.
A state of war in the Middle East has continued uninterruptedly ever since, because most of the Arab states have refused to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state. To this day, the Arab states and the Palestinians refer to the failure of their effort to destroy Israel as Al-Nakba — The Catastrophe. What for one people was a joyous founding, was seen by the other as a disaster.
Had there been no invasion of Israel by Arab armies whose intent was overtly genocidal, there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948.
From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged war against Israel, launching more than 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip. The 1956 “Sinai campaign” ended Egypt’s terror war, even though U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower forced Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion to return the Sinai to Egypt without a peace treaty.
But the Arab war continued on other fronts. In 1964, Yasser Arafat began a campaign of terror whose avowed goal was the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews. Sponsored first by Kuwait, and later by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran, Arafat declared unending war against Israel until all of “Palestine” would be liberated, redeemed in “fire and blood.”
In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel for a second time and were again defeated. It was in repelling these aggressors that Israel came to control the West Bank and the Gaza strip, as well as the oil-rich Sinai desert. Israel elected not to annex these territories it had captured from the aggressors, but neither did it withdraw its armies or relinquish its control over the region because the Arabs once again refused to make peace.
In 1973 the Arab armies again attacked Israel. This invasion was led by Syria and Egypt, abetted by Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and five other countries that gave military support to the aggressors. Israel again defeated the Arab forces. Afterwards, Egypt — and Egypt alone — agreed to make a formal peace.
In 1987 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) initiated a violent, six-year Intifada (uprising) directed against Israeli soldiers and civilians alike, after false rumors of Israeli atrocities had circulated through Palestinian territories. During the first four years of the uprising, Palestinians carried out more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks, and 600 assaults with guns or explosives. These actions resulted in the deaths of 16 Israeli civilians and 11 Israeli soldiers, in addition to the wounding of more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers.
In 1993 the Oslo peace process was initiated, based on the pledge that both parties would renounce violence as a means of settling their disputes. But the Palestinians never followed through on this pledge. During the so-called “peace process” — between 1993 and 1999 — they perpetrated more than 4,000 terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis. During this same period, Israel gave the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a self-governing authority, a 40,000-man armed “police force,” and 95 percent of the territory their negotiators demanded. But Israel’s efforts to achieve peace were in vain. In 2000, the Palestinians officially launched a new, second Intifada against Israel, effectively terminating the peace process.
By the same token, when Israeli leaders declared their own independence in 1948, it represented a culmination of their nation-building efforts, not their initiation. More than 650,000 Jews already lived in a vibrant, dynamic, surprisingly cohesive civilization spread through several major cities (including the new metropolis of Tel Aviv, constructed on empty sand dunes in 1909) and scores of agricultural communities built on previously unoccupied land purchased from absentee owners. Intensive Jewish immigration began in the 1880s, more than two generations before independence, and produced distinctive political parties, labor unions, universities, newspapers, theater companies, and even symphony orchestras. This nation in formation also managed to defend itself against murderous Arab riots in 1921, 1929, 1936, and 1939, giving rise to the Haganah (“The Defense” in Hebrew), a militia that averaged 30,000 members over 30 years pre-independence, ultimately developing into the Israel Defense Forces. Like the Minutemen who gave rise to the Continental Army, these citizen soldiers fought a bloody struggle after formal independence, combating formidable foes determined to exterminate their new nation.
Greater care and clarity in describing the history of the conflict will encourage policymakers and the public to grasp its essential contours, and to recognize the absence of any real equivalence in the goals or strategies of the two sides.
Israel, in other words, wasn’t created by the U.N., the U.S. (which observed an arms embargo and provided no aid during the War of Independence), or any other outside agency. The nation grew from the patient, incremental, organic efforts of the Halutzim (pioneers) who risked everything to build a homeland for themselves and their posterity.
Nor did these efforts in any way “uproot” or “displace” Palestinian society. During the years of intensive immigration between World War I and World War II, the Jewish population west of the Jordan increased by 470,000 while the non-Jewish population swelled by 588,000. According to respected British census figures, the number of Palestinian Arabs exploded on the eve of Israeli independence, increasing 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. These figures prove that the rise of the Jewish state (with its greatly heightened economic development) drew more Palestinians into the area, rather than driving them away.
Palestinians became refugees only after fighting began in the War of Independence, especially after five Arab states with well-equipped armies invaded the fledgling Jewish state, pledged to achieve its total annihilation. Even then, in the midst of massive bloodshed and widespread violence, the Palestinian Arab population increased, rather than declining. In 1941, before Israeli independence and the claimed “uprooting” of Palestinians, 1,111,398 Arabs lived in what later became Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Nine years later, after the turmoil of war and dislocation, that number had risen (slightly) to 1,162,100. By 1980 (with Israel controlling all territory west of the Jordan), the Palestinian numbers had nearly doubled, and they more than doubled again by 2005. Most recent figures show that the Palestinian population of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank has increased by more than fivefold since independence and the flight of the famous refugees—hardly evidence of some ruthless program of ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately, anti-Israel propagandists choose to ignore these facts and to distort history with misleading and manipulative language. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently wrote in The New York Times about the 1947 U.N. vote to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian. “Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948,” he notes, “the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
He neglects to mention that the Palestinian leaders themselves (led by the grand mufti of Jerusalem, a close Hitler ally during the war) rejected the U.N. partition and made no effort to set up a Palestinian state, either before or after the War of Independence. Between 1949 and 1967, Arabs (the Egyptians and Jordanians) controlled every inch of territory that Abbas now seeks for his new state—all of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They could have established a Palestinian homeland at any point during those 18 years and, incidentally, continued denying Jews any access to their holy sites. With scant protest from Palestinians, the Arab states made no effort to “fulfill the promise” because they concentrated all their attention and effort on destroying Israel rather than building Palestine. They cared far more about expelling Jews than they did about re-settling Palestinians.
Go read the rest, and spread it around. stop the lies about Israel and “Palestine”. The fact is that Palestinians want to destroy Israel far more than they want peace with Da JOOOOS!
Excerpted from JP: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that activists in the “flytilla” concerned about human rights abuses should look elsewhere in the Middle East.
“Why did they come to Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East?” Netanyahu said in a meeting with US Senator Joe Lieberman. “If they want to check the issue of human rights, they should go to Syria – maybe they will help stop the killing of thousands of innocents. They should go to Iran and stop the stoning of women. They should go to Gaza and stop the practice of using children as human shields for terrorists who fire rockets on our citizens,” he said.
“After they do that educational tour, they should come to Israel and we can talk with them about what they learned about how the Middle East and how it really is.”
The prime minister’s comments closely mirrored the message in a letter given to each of the activists, mocking their focus on Israel given the region’s extreme human rights abuses.
Of course, we all know the truth about these anti-Israeli protesters. They are either useful idiots, brainwashed by Leftist propaganda, or they are anti-Semites who support terrorism. Yes, it is that simple. No one who has the most basic grasp of reality would ever blame Israel for “human rights violations” while turning a blind eye to the horrors committed by Israels enemies.
We should support Israel, which has shown REPEATEDLY that is desires to live in peace, but the Palestinian leaders? Let them start showing the same desire, and until then, to Hell with them! Instead, our Liberal politicians bow and scrape to the Palestinians, and I cannot grasp this. Neither can findalis at Maggies Notebbook
Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas told visiting US Congressmen on Thursday he wants the security of a future PA state to be handed to NATO under US command, the Maan news agency reported Friday.
The PA state must also be “empty of settlements,” Abbas said, according to official Palestinian Authority news agency WAFA.
Members of the US Congress and Senate delegation, headed by Democrat Senator Steny Hoyer, met with Abbas in Ramallah on Thursday, and quizzed Abbas on Israel’s designation as a Jewish state, the status of refugees, and reconciliation between Abbas’ Fatah party and rival Hamas, Presidential adviser Nimir Hamad said.
Abbas reiterated the Palestinian Authority’s well-known positions on these matters, Hammad added, and specified that security responsibility for the Palestinian Authority would be handled by a third party, suggesting the US-Europe military alliance NATO.
In September 2010, Abbas outlined his government’s acceptance of international forces from NATO or similar to the UNIFIL force operating in southern Lebanon playing a role in PA security, as long as forces did not include one single Israeli, whether from the civilian population or the military.
Abbas is currently pursuing a unilateral recognition of PA statehood based on pre-1967 lines at the United Nations in September.
A great interview viaThe Right Scoop I do not know if Bolton plans to enter the 2012 race but I certainly hope any Republican that does win next November would put Bolton in a good cabinet spot. Say Secretary of State
When someone is asked about Hamas, you have to listen carefully to their words, especially when they are telling students lies like“Hams has done a lot of good…..”
Hamas has “done a lot of good” in Palestine, students at a University of California, Irvine program were told last week.
At a speech sponsored by the Muslim Student Union called “What Israeli Going On,” Amir Mertaban repeatedly refused to answer when audience members asked if he condemned the terrorist group which now controls Gaza. He called it “a loaded question.” Instead, he praised the group’s social and political program while rationalizing the issue of its violence.
A “loaded question” It is nothing but a direct and very simple question. Anyone who dances around a question like this asshat does is either so morally retarded that they cannot accept reality, or they are a supporter of terrorism.
“Any unjust killing of Israeli civilians I absolutely abhor and Islam does not allow,” he said.
Note that he uses the term “unjustified” killing of an Israeli civilian. My first question is what does he consider “justified”? The answer to that becomes pretty clear as he continues
“However, Hamas has also done a lot of freedom fighting missions for that matter. And I am absolutely one who defends anyone’s right, whether you be American, whether you be Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, to defend your rights. If you feel that you’ve been attacked wrongfully, and you defend you rights, I will never call you a terrorist.”
Aha, now we see, Hamas are freedom fighters when they blow up busloads of innocent Israelis, they are merely defending their rights, so they could not be a terrorist you see.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, and this man damn well knows that. He supports the barbarism and evil Hamas visits upon Israeli civilians. Sure, he condemns the “unjustified” killing of civilians, but then characterizes the vile acts Hamas carries out as “freedom fighting” you see.
More evidence of this swine’s true colors can be found in past statements.
Later in the speech Mertaban said that he supported the Taliban during the 1980s. “So do I support the Taliban then? That’s a loaded question. In the 80s – sure, they were fighting for their rights and for their freedoms. I absolutely support what they were doing then.” Mertaban said nothing to condemn the Taliban and did not mention the terrorism that the group has employed since its inception.
That is not necessarily surprising, given Mertaban’s past remarks at an MSA event.
During a 2007 MSA-West conference, he suggested Muslims stand by Osama bin Laden even if he had done wrong. “I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened,” Mertaban said.”But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?”
Yesterday, the Israelis stopped and boarded the Rachel Corrie another “Gaza blockade buster” ship. This time, those on the ship did not unleash deadly assaults upon the Israeli foces, and, to no sane person’s surprise, were, in turned not harmed in any way.
Stacy McCain, offers up a background on the name of that ship, the pro-terrorist pancake that inspired it and an actual victim of terrorism, in his post The Holy Church of St. Pancake: The International Solidarity Movement and the Rachel Corrie Death Cult
It is an absolute must read if you want a better understanding of what Israel, faces, and what we here may one day face if we do not wise up!
Thwarting Iran’s nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Israeli TV reports said Monday that Emanuel made the comments in a closed-door meeting the previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors.
Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem’s commitment to the peace process.
Making peace with the Palestinians? Israel WOULD be at peace if Hamas and Hezbollah would allow it, but they will not allow it. Every time Israel reaches out, they get more attacks for their efforts.
And frankly, shouldn’t stopping Iran from getting nukes be a top priority for this nation no matter what?
H/T Gateway Pundit who also has a video up that illustrates why Iran should be dealt with
This is, of course, untrue, Iran wants no part of Israel, but, they are very emboldened by the weak stance they see the new administration taking. Have Iran’s leaders convinced themselves that they could attack Israel without fear of the U.S. stepping in? If they have would they be right?
If you want to weigh how much has chjanged since January 20 consider that no one would have wondered about the U.S. committment to Israel under George W. Bush.