The Hate Surrounding Israel

The Palestinians are trying to force UN recognition of them as a Nation. That cannot happen else Israel will indeed be faced with another war for her survival. Let’s look at some facts, shall we?

The Weekly Standard (HT Hot Air Headlines) has the logo of the “Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations” straight off their webpage, which I will not link because I don’t want to help publicize their hate-filled site.

Israeli land without Israel

Absent from the logo is any hint that Palestine consists of anything other than Arab territory. No nod is given even to the U.N.’s 1948 decision to divide the region into Jewish and Arab sectors. As for the shape of Israel by the time it was forced into waging the defensive Six Day war in 1967: irrelevant. The logo illustrates that the Palestinian bid before the U.N. for support of a unilateral declaration of statehood is disingenuous and dangerous.

There is not too much left to the imagination here: Israel is “wiped off the map.”

Matthew Knee clarifies the issue:

The root of the conflict is not that Israel currently controls the West Bank. The root of the conflict is that the Palestinians and their allies are still unwilling to accept that Israel exists at all.

Ivy League law professor William A Jacobson responds to an Atlantic article:

Obama assured the rise of Hamas? Hamas has already risen. Obama legitimated violence in the pursuit of Palestinian political goals? Have you been sleeping the last 60 years? Really, can’t The Atlantic do better than this nonsense? Bring back Andrew Sullivan, the relative voice of sanity.

The “occupation” is the cause of all the problems?. Oh wait, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and Gaza now is an Iranian missile base. Oh wait, the effort to drive the Jews into the sea started before the 1967 war, indeed, prior to the creation of Israel; just ask the Jews who used to live in the centuries-old Jewish community in Hebron before the 1929 Arab riots and massacre. Oh wait, Hamas does not agree to the existence of Israel. Oh wait, Abbas said just a few weeks ago he never — as in never — will accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Land for peace is risky enough; land without peace is a suicide pact.

And Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader of the West Bank who will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, has been declared to be one of the “moderate” Mohammedans in the region.

Hube, at Colossus of Rhodey (I suggest you read his article), linked to a Cal Thomas commentary surrounding this issue.

Israel — like the Jewish people for centuries — has become the fall guy for people who prefer their anti-Semitism cloaked in diplomatic niceties. The Palestinians could have peace any time they wish and probably a state, too, if they acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and practiced verbal, religious and military disarmament. One has a right to question the veracity of a people who claim they want peace, while remaining active in ideological, theological and military warfare aimed at its publicly stated objective: the eradication of the Jewish state.

Before Israel is allowed to disappear again (as Palestinian maps and school textbooks already depict) and the Jews who survive are sent into exile (who would take them?), it is worth noting a few of the numerous contributions Israel has made to the world, compared to what the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian culture has contributed.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again denied the Holocaust ever happened on the floor of the UN today. The man who is pumping massive amounts of military grade weapons into Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza so Mohammedan Terrorists can keep murdering Israelis continues to be a Holocaust denier, believing the history is all made up by Westerners and Jew-lovers.

No, since the Reconstitution of Israel, these people have been all about wiping Israel off the map. Even before the Reconstitution of Israel, these people have been all about the genocidal eradication of the Jews.

Israel won the Sinai Peninsula in a defensive war against Egypt. Israel offered it back to Egypt in return for a Peace Treaty. Israel offered Jordan a continuous supply of water, huge amounts continuously flowing out of Israel and into Jordan, for a Peace Treaty with Jordan. Those two Middle East countries are the only two who have agreed to peace with Israel. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and got in return Palestinians stepping up their terrorist attacks on Israel.

As the radical Leftist commenter at Common Sense Political Thought (Perry) constantly says, don’t look at Israel; look at the other side. Well, I have looked at the other side. I have examined the histo-facts. I have examined current events. And I say it is foolhardy for anyone to require Israel to negotiate with terrorists who want nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. And until the Palestinians repent of their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map, I say do not negotiate with the genocidal terrorists.
________
Cross-Post

54 Comments

  1. No, John, my position from the US perspective is to be even-handed.

    I must note, John, that missing from your piece is any reference whatsoever to President Obama’s important speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Why is this?

  2. I must note, John, that missing from your piece is any reference whatsoever to President Obama’s important speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Why is this?

    Actually, Perry, if you weren’t so lazy as to be unable to follow links provided before attacking people, you would know that’s already been covered in one of the links. Try following the link to the Ivy League law professor’s words.

  3. But it’s nice to see you skimming past all those inconvenient (for your brain-dead position) truths to get to where you got publicly chastised for your incoherence.

  4. No, John, my position from the US perspective is to be even-handed.

    And that’s just it — we should not be “even-handed.”

    Should we have been even-handed with Nazi Germany and England? Imperial Japan and China? South Korea and North Korea? Of course not. Unless you’re a real idiot, that is. So it goes with Israel and the Palestinians.

  5. Perry says:
    22 September 2011 at 18:45 (Edit)
    No, John, my position from the US perspective is to be even-handed.

    I must note, John, that missing from your piece is any reference whatsoever to President Obama’s important speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Why is this?

    Problem is Perry, as we have noticed in these 2 and 3/4 years, BO is an empty suit that speaks words written by other and shown to him on a TelePrompTer. I his campaign speeches from 2008 has shown he speaks words only without conviction. I was a conservationist today. I saw BO was on TV following the words and mouthing them from the TelePrompTer and turned the TV off. He’s just an empty suit occupying a position, unfortunately this Socialist who is an over spender and lacks balls is President.

  6. No, John, my position from the US perspective is to be even-handed.

    And that’s just it — we should not be “even-handed.”

    Should we have been even-handed with Nazi Germany and England? Imperial Japan and China? South Korea and North Korea? Of course not. Unless you’re a real idiot, that is. So it goes with Israel and the Palestinians.

    Wrong, Hube. Now I see your problem: In your mind you equate the Palestinians with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and China. This is simply not true, and your contention is absurd beyond belief.

    The colonial powers by fiat defined the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, where the former was situated on land which was occupied by a majority of Palestinian Semites. (So there are your anti-Semites, Hube).

    What would your response be, hypothetically, if the Soviet Union and Communist China by fiat declared, in 1948, that the entire western half of the United States belonged to Mexico?

    This is in effect is similar to what Britain, France, and the US did in Palestine, by virtue of the 1948 UN Mandate, displacing the majority Palestinians, eventually amounting to over a million refugees once the “defensive” wars were fought.

    So yes, there is hatred for the Jews by many Arabs, and hatred of the Palestinians by many Jews, which is one reason why the conflict remains intractable. Thus, Hitchcock has not addressed this issue with any sense of balance at all.

    Here is what Abbas reiterated on Fox News:

    “Abbas said that he’s ready to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at any time.”

    These are not the words of a Palestinian leader who does not favor statehood for Israel.

    But then there is Hamas, which has to be part of the negotiations as well. Yet the Israeli treatment of the Gazans has hardened the resolve of Hamas. Ask the Turks about that! Neither the Israelis nor Hamas have behaved like adults to resolve their differences, so this is a major hindrance to a two state settlement.

    But an attitude like those expressed by the two H’s, Hitchcock and Hube, is far from constructive, in fact, the opposite!

    To blame it all on the Palestinians and their allies is false. Ask the Turks!

  7. But then there is Hamas, which has to be part of the negotiations as well.

    A bunch of racist thugs, bent on killing the occupants of a certain house, is vandalizing the house while the occupants are inside. The racist thugs are doing their level best to break down the door and gain entry into the house but the occupants are keeping them at bay. Perry, who lives down the street, calls the occupants of the house and demands they let the racist thugs bent on killing them into their parlor. It’s only fair that they be allowed in to talk it all out. Besides, what could go wrong?

    No, Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and wants nothing less than the eradication of Israel and the Jews. Do not negotiate with genocidal terrorists.

  8. Pingback: The Libertarian: Can Israel make peace with Hamas ?

  9. A bunch of racist thugs, bent on killing the occupants of a certain house, is vandalizing the house while the occupants are inside.

    What our favourite l1ar “forgets” to mention is that the house belongs to the “racist thugs”, who were forced out at gunpoint by the occupants.

  10. Now I see your problem: In your mind you equate the Palestinians with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and China. This is simply not true, and your contention is absurd beyond belief.

    How is it absurd? Like the Nazis, the Palis (and many other Arab nations/peoples) desire the obliteration of the Jews. Not to mention, like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, they want ALL of the land they “believe” is “theirs.” And then there’s the small matter of what Hitchcock posted above now, ain’t there? No, “absurd” is your ridiculous naivete.

    The colonial powers by fiat defined the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, where the former was situated on land which was occupied by a majority of Palestinian Semites. (So there are your anti-Semites, Hube).

    Nope. The United Nations defined it after the colonial powers were fed up with the increasingly volatile situation.

    What would your response be, hypothetically, if the Soviet Union and Communist China by fiat declared, in 1948, that the entire western half of the United States belonged to Mexico?

    Stupid analogy, mainly b/c the United States (and Mexico) are both sovereign states whereas “Palestine” was not (and never was) until 1948.

    These are not the words of a Palestinian leader who does not favor statehood for Israel.

    The above words are the words of ridiculously naive “progressive” who cannot see past his ideology in spite of himself.

    But an attitude like those expressed by the two H’s, Hitchcock and Hube, is far from constructive, in fact, the opposite!

    At least our attitude keeps Jews alive, and Israel extant. Yours ultimately will lead to the opposite. It already has.

  11. And meanwhile, in the real world, Perry:

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas strongly suggested Saturday that he would reject a peacemaking blueprint put forward by international mediators, saying he would not agree to any proposal that disregarded Palestinian conditions for the resumption of peace talks.

    Abbas, who returned to the West Bank on Saturday after submitting a statehood bid at the United Nations a day earlier, told reporters accompanying him that he was still studying the proposal by the peacemaking Quartet — the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia.

    But he appeared to tip his hand by saying “we will not deal with any initiative” that doesn’t demand a halt to Israeli settlement construction or negotiations based on borders before the 1967 War when Israel captured land the Palestinians claim for their state.

    The Quartet statement made no such demands.

    IOW, “We and our Arab friends f***ed you over too many times to count … but we want everything back the way it was without consequences so eventually we can try it all again.”

  12. Perry errs:

    The colonial powers by fiat defined the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, where the former was situated on land which was occupied by a majority of Palestinian Semites. (So there are your anti-Semites, Hube).

    What would your response be, hypothetically, if the Soviet Union and Communist China by fiat declared, in 1948, that the entire western half of the United States belonged to Mexico?

    This is in effect is similar to what Britain, France, and the US did in Palestine, by virtue of the 1948 UN Mandate, displacing the majority Palestinians, eventually amounting to over a million refugees once the “defensive” wars were fought.

    So yes, there is hatred for the Jews by many Arabs, and hatred of the Palestinians by many Jews, which is one reason why the conflict remains intractable. Thus, Hitchcock has not addressed this issue with any sense of balance at all.

    You seem to think that it was the original mandate which created modern Israel, but nothing could be further from the truth.

    The Romans expelled the greatest part of the Jewish population from the Holy Land in 70 AD, and the Jews lives primarily in Europe for almost 1900 years after that. But Jewish immigration back to their ancestral lands began, as a trickle, with the birth of Zionism, as expressed by Theodor Herzl, in the late 19th century, and became a torrent after the dispossession and slaughter of the Jews by the Third Reich; at the end of the war, the Jews who survived really had no homes to which to return, and there was a large scale immigration to the Holy Land.

    The United Nations and the former colonial powers hoped to regularize the creation of Israel, but the Israelis took matters into their own hands with their Declaration of Independence.

    The Israelis echoed our own history: a growing group of immigrants came to the land, and conquered it, declaring their independence as they did so. That is their claim to the land, not whatever the old men in the British Foreign Office conjured up.

  13. Perry wrote:

    But then there is Hamas, which has to be part of the negotiations as well. Yet the Israeli treatment of the Gazans has hardened the resolve of Hamas. Ask the Turks about that! Neither the Israelis nor Hamas have behaved like adults to resolve their differences, so this is a major hindrance to a two state settlement.

    Yeah, uh huh, right. The Israelis announce their intention to completely evacuate Gaza, and then do so, leaving it entirely to the Palestinians. The Palestinians then take what they were given, trash some of the abandoned Israeli settlements and industry rather than using them, and use Gaza as a launching pad to shoot rockets into Israel, yet, to Perry, the Israelis didn’t behave like adults, and both sides are somehow equally to blame.

    Perry, Jews have been the second most loyal voting demographic for the Democrats for decades; Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic presidential candidate, in 1980 (not 1976), who failed to receive an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote, and this after he helped to broker the Camp David Accords. Yet now we are seeing substantial Jewish disaffection for President Obama, most notably shown in the New York special election, despite what you believe to be Israel-friendly policies, and despite the Obama Administration’s position that the United Nations should not grant the Palestinians independent nation status in the organization. For whatever reasons they have, it seems as though American Jews just don’t trust President Obama. I suppose some of that could be due to his total ineptitude on financial matters, but it also seems as though they don’t really trust him when it comes to Israel and his foreign policy.

  14. “For whatever reasons they have, it seems as though American Jews just don’t trust President Obama.”

    In other words, Dana, do what the Jewish voting block wants, even though it might not be productive for peace, is that your position?

    Well I disagree. Both Carter and Obama have tried an even-handed approach re Palestine/Israel, though politically it was a disaster.

    I guess President Obama has learned his lesson, as he moved into the fold with his UN speech the other day, though still no praise out of you pro-Israeli stalwarts. How do you explain that, Dana?

    I explain it by the fact that your ideology has at least clouded, but more likely has frozen your brain.

    The President found himself between a rock and a hard place on this issue, so he chose the rock, meaning that he bowed to the demands of American Jewry, and sacrificed the needs of the Palestinians for a state of their own, and the Arab Street as well. And when his SC veto comes, the polarization will be even more pronounced, certainly not on the path to peace. Supporting the statehood in the UN would have pushed the two sides toward negotiation. The way it is now, there is no reason for Israel to negotiate, Netanyahu says they will. Let’s see if that happens.

  15. “But he appeared to tip his hand by saying “we will not deal with any initiative” that doesn’t demand a halt to Israeli settlement construction or negotiations based on borders before the 1967 War when Israel captured land the Palestinians claim for their state.”

    Hube, do you find fault with this precondition? I don’t! The continued expansion of the settlements cannot be tolerated by those whose land is being gobbled up, the Palestinians. Let us try to exert a sense of fairness here, in our attempt to be even-handed, assuming we are still willing to take an even-handed position. After President Obama’s UN address, I am not sure that is his position any more.

  16. Perry wrote:

    “For whatever reasons they have, it seems as though American Jews just don’t trust President Obama.”

    In other words, Dana, do what the Jewish voting block wants, even though it might not be productive for peace, is that your position?

    Well I disagree. Both Carter and Obama have tried an even-handed approach re Palestine/Israel, though politically it was a disaster.

    And that, I believe, was their problem: American Jews saw those Presidents as trying to be even-handed, as trying to treat both sides equally, and those voters disapproved.

    President Obama’s latest position, to oppose UN action which would have that body declare Palestine to be an independent nation, ought to appeal to Jewish voters, but I’ll bet it isn’t enough to make them trust him again. It’s probably more of an instinctive feeling than a cold examination of the policies.

  17. Perry wrote:

    I guess President Obama has learned his lesson, as he moved into the fold with his UN speech the other day, though still no praise out of you pro-Israeli stalwarts. How do you explain that, Dana?

    I explain it by the fact that your ideology has at least clouded, but more likely has frozen your brain.

    It was the right thing to do on that issue; I never said differently. You might recall that I have given President Obama credit for a few wise policies: the Libyan operation (though he was three weeks too late), abandoning his silly promises to close Guantanamo and try detainees in federal court, his policies in Afghanistan, and his decision not to impose air quality regulations which would have cost American jobs.

    But having done a few things right does not outweigh the very onerous things he’s done wrong: the first stimulus bill and ObaminableCare.

  18. Perry says:
    22 September 2011 at 18:45 (Edit)

    No, John, my position from the US perspective is to be even-handed.

    I must note, John, that missing from your piece is any reference whatsoever to President Obama’s important speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Why is this?

    John Hitchcock says:
    22 September 2011 at 18:54 (Edit)

    I must note, John, that missing from your piece is any reference whatsoever to President Obama’s important speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Why is this?

    Actually, Perry, if you weren’t so lazy as to be unable to follow links provided before attacking people, you would know that’s already been covered in one of the links. Try following the link to the Ivy League law professor’s words.

    Asked and answered. Then answered again in another thread Perry had been yapping on.

    http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=17017#comment-663896

    John Hitchcock says:
    24 September 2011 at 15:17 (Edit)

    More than half the public — 56% — disapproves of the President’s performance.

    There are several other indications in the poll of how opinion about the President has changed over time. Well over half the country has concerns about what the President says. 57% believes most of what he says is what he wants people to hear, and not what he really believes. That is one point short of the highest percentage recorded on this question in this poll.

    Linky.

    Perry, ever eager to show his intentionally self-blinding attitude, ignores everything to put forth this:

    Perry says:
    24 September 2011 at 19:27 (Edit)

    I guess President Obama has learned his lesson, as he moved into the fold with his UN speech the other day, though still no praise out of you pro-Israeli stalwarts. How do you explain that, Dana?

    I explain it by the fact that your ideology has at least clouded, but more likely has frozen your brain.

    You already asked the question, Perry, and you were answered more than once. But yet you refuse to even pay attention to the answer so you can spread your propagandistic smear-attack lies and continually ask a question that has already been answered (more than once).

  19. Perry wrote:

    Let us try to exert a sense of fairness here, in our attempt to be even-handed, assuming we are still willing to take an even-handed position.

    But we are not willing to be “even-handed, or at least I certainly am not. I absolutely favor the Israelis.

  20. Hube, do you find fault with this precondition?

    Not necessarily that one. But you don’t mention in your last comment — and ignored what I bolded and italicized in my previous one — the fact that the 1967 borders is what Abbas wants as a precondition. Now tell us, Perry — since you’ve been so vocal about Israeli preconditions in the past, ones a lot more reasonable than this one — what possible incentive does Israel have to agree to such a precondition?

  21. Hube, here is the quote you used to describe Abbas’ precondition:

    “But he appeared to tip his hand by saying “we will not deal with any initiative” that doesn’t demand a halt to Israeli settlement construction or negotiations based on borders before the 1967 War when Israel captured land the Palestinians claim for their state.”

    A “halt to Israeli settlement construction”, he said, correct?

    Then you come back with this:

    … the fact that the 1967 borders is what Abbas wants as a precondition.

    So which is it, Hube, the Abbas quote, or your twisting of it into a totally different meaning?

  22. So which is it, Hube, the Abbas quote, or your twisting of it into a totally different meaning?

    Um, did you read the whole quote? There’s two parts to it — a part after the “or.” Not to mention did you read the article, Perry? Here’s another article for you to hopefully clear up the issue of Pali demands for pre-1967 borders.

    Now, tell us, Perry — since you’ve been so vocal about Israeli preconditions in the past, ones a lot more reasonable than this one — what possible incentive does Israel have to agree to such a precondition?

  23. Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but, at the same time, the Hamas Charter states clearly that all of Palestine — including Israel — is an Islamic waqf. (See Article 11.) Also in their Charter (Article 7), Hamas says:

    Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

    How interesting that the Palestinians are unwilling to recognize Israel as a Jewish state — and they would have to recognize Israel in some way for there to ever be a peace treaty — yet they are perfectly willing to hold that teir “nation” is Islamic, and that their goal is to kill the Jews.

    And while the PLO Charter does not say that Palestine must be exclusively Islamic, it certainly does justify the use of military conquest . . . as long as they are the victors. (See Article 9)

    While Yassir Arafat sent a letter to President Clinton saying that the aggressive passages of the PLO Charter were being revoked, that action never really happened.

  24. Can there really be any doubt whatsoever that the allegiance of American Jews to the Democratic Party is just wholly misguided and misplaced? Have Republican Presidents been less friendly toward Israel, or would that be the Democratic Presidents? Have Republican Presidents wanted to impose more taxes on higher earners (and American Jews are, generally speaking, higher than average earners), or would that have been the Democrats’ policies? Have Republicans been more friendly, more “understanding,” toward the plight of Israel’s enemies, or would that have been the Democrats?

  25. Perry has his eyes closed and his ears plugged to the facts and histo-facts, and he always will, as he gyrates and screams hysterically that the ever-maligned, ever-persecuted, ever-murdered Jews must necessarily cooperate with their maligners, persecutors, murderers. And the end result will be, if Perry and his ilk get their way, worse than the Holocaust. Bank it.

  26. I hear a lot of crickets coming from Perry’s area about now. Takers for him completely skirting over the border preconditions? What Dana just posted? Etc.?

  27. Sorry, Hube. I didn’t see what you just wrote. Can you please cite where you wrote what you claimed to have written? Or failing that, will you admit you lied yet again? /Perry

  28. And don’t forget Clinton met with Arafat near the Red Sea Resort. The Israelis agreed to 98% of what Palis wanted. They agreed and Arafat went back to the Palistinians and told a whole different story and the agreement was rejected. The Palis appeared to negotiate in good faith with leaders of the US, Egypt, PLO, and Israel. The PLO flushed it down the toilet. So, whatever “peace” incentives come from the Palis, it’s usually a lie.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/mid022.asp

  29. Yorkshire wrote:

    And don’t forget Clinton met with Arafat near the Red Sea Resort. The Israelis agreed to 98% of what Palis wanted. They agreed and Arafat went back to the Palistinians and told a whole different story and the agreement was rejected. The Palis appeared to negotiate in good faith with leaders of the US, Egypt, PLO, and Israel. The PLO flushed it down the toilet. So, whatever “peace” incentives come from the Palis, it’s usually a lie.

    I don’t know that the Palestinian leadership — such as it is — even could negotiate a settlement with Israel, even if they were doing so in good faith. I have always thought that Yassir Arafat’s final rejection of the offer agreed to by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was based on one thing, and one thing only: the knowledge that his “countrymen” would have killed him if he had accepted it.

    Mahmoud Abbas is in a weaker position than Mr Arafat; if he actually tried, in good faith, to negotiate a peace agreement, he would quickly get to see Allah, courtesy of a few hundred 7.62 mm cartridges.

  30. It is not “The Occupation” Arabs reject; they reject the right of Israel to exist as a legitimate Jewish political entity.

    Israelis have exhibited extraordinary willingness to find a win-win solution, yet Arab Palestinians’ opposition to a Jewish polity has been unremitting and uncompromising, rejecting all efforts at compromise and reconciliation.

    Palestinian Arabs have underscored their rejectionism with wave after wave of terrorism at every juncture – that is, before the 1967 Six-Day War and even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

    Non-acceptance of Israel ‘s right to exist and support for terrorism is not solely the province of any particular Palestinian leader; it is a deeply rooted social value, reflected in public opinion polls among Palestinians and other Arabs – then and now.

    September 11, 2001 highlighted the Palestinians’ two major social “contributions” to humanity: skyjacking and suicide bombings. 65

    Between September 1993 and February 2003, more than 1,004 Israelis have lost their lives to Palestinian terrorists – the per capita equivalent of approximately 50,000 American deaths, a loss that would equal 17 September 11 th attacks.

    The world cannot afford the luxury of ignoring crazy states, and thus begs the question: Should the international community take a gamble? The odds of creating a new rogue state called Palestine are excellent.

    http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

  31. “I don’t know that the Palestinian leadership — such as it is — even could negotiate a settlement with Israel, even if they were doing so in good faith. I have always thought that Yassir Arafat’s final rejection of the offer agreed to by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was based on one thing, and one thing only: the knowledge that his “countrymen” would have killed him if he had accepted it.”

    I have never heard that one, Dana, and suspect it is a speculation at best, or at least a falsehood.

    My understanding always has been that the missing 2% consisted of Israel having sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, and that there would be no right of return. Arafat reluctantly accepted the non-contiguous two “islands” which would be the Palistinian state, Gaza and the West Bank, a rather peculiar configuration for a state, no?

    Most Americans never hear the Palestinian side of the conflict. If you’re curious, I recommend this for starters, and on the specifics of the Camp David failure, I recommend this.

  32. Perry says:
    24 September 2011 at 23:58 (Edit)

    “I don’t know that the Palestinian leadership — such as it is — even could negotiate a settlement with Israel, even if they were doing so in good faith. I have always thought that Yassir Arafat’s final rejection of the offer agreed to by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was based on one thing, and one thing only: the knowledge that his “countrymen” would have killed him if he had accepted it.” (quoting Dana)

    I have never heard that one, Dana, and suspect it is a speculation at best, or at least a falsehood.

    Excellent. Perry, the radical and unhinged Leftist apologist for the genocidal Islamic terrorists, has accused Dana of lying about what Dana has always thought. What a maroon, that intentionally blind Perry.

  33. The Israelis echoed our own history: a growing group of immigrants came to the land, and conquered it, declaring their independence as they did so.

    Complete with ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants?

    It seems to me that if this is your “logic”, you can’t complain when Palestinians use terrorism against Israelis – they’re just trying to conquer their land back.

  34. Complete with ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants?

    In a word: NO.
    Quick, which Middle East nation allows mosques, churches, synagogues and the freedom of each citizen to attend the one of his or her choice or none whatsoever? Quick, which Middle East nation allows both Jews and Mohammedans to hold elected seats in government?

    If Israel had done “ethnic cleansing” in their 1948, 1967, 1973 defensive wars, the Middle East problem would no longer exist.

    It seems to me that if this is your “logic”, you can’t complain when Palestinians use terrorism against Israelis – they’re just trying to conquer their land back.

    Straw-man. Israel should not, ever, negotiate with the genocidal terrorists who want nothing less than wiping Israel off the map and the eradication of the Jews. Israel should defend itself wholeheartedly against the terroristic Jew-haters. Anything else would be uncivilized.

  35. Quick, which Middle East nation allows both Jews and Mohammedans to hold elected seats in government?

    Iran. Ciamak Moresadegh.

    How many Palestinians are in the Knesset?

    Why am I asking you? Everyone knows you’re just a l1ar.

  36. The Phoenician wrote:

    Quick, which Middle East nation allows both Jews and Mohammedans to hold elected seats in government? (John)

    Iran. Ciamak Moresadegh.

    How many Palestinians are in the Knesset?

    Why am I asking you? Everyone knows you’re just a l1ar.

    It seems to me that the liar exposed here wouldn’t be John! John asked, “which Middle East nation allows both Jews and Mohammedans to hold elected seats in government?” while you changed the qualifier by asking how many Palestinians, not Arabs or Muslims, are in the Knesset.

    Well, there are no “Palestinians” in the Knesset, because Knesset membership is restricted to Israeli citizens, and the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. However, if you had asked the question more honestly, how many Arabs are in the Knesset, the answer would be: 14.

    Now, if the question is “how many Mohammedans hold seats in the Knesset, as I went down the list of the 14 Arabs who are Knesset members, not all of the biographies specified religion, but the biographies for Masud Ghnaim, Raleb Majadele and Ibrahim Sarsur list them as Muslims, while Hana Sweid is listed as having been born into an Arab Christian family, though it doesn’t specify that she is Christian. Ahmad Tibi describes himself as “as Arab-Palestinian in nationality, and Israeli in citizenship,” and “served as a political advisor to Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat for several years, representing the Palestinians at the 1998 Wye River negotiations.[3] He’s quoted as saying (7/13/94): “The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinians people for everything that was done in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is Yasser Arafat…”[4][dubious – discuss] He resigned from the post in 1999, upon deciding to run for the Knesset. Tibi described his relationship with Arafat as “close” and “extremely interesting and important to [him].” Tibi later visited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and urged him to hold firm in refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.[5] Tibi identifies himself as a “Palestinian Patriot”.” The anti-Zionist political party Balad has three seats in the Knesset, while the anti-Zionist Ta’al has one.

    It seems that John did not lie . . . but you, in framing your rhetorical question as you did, tried to make it look like one.

    Nor is ignorance of the answer much of an excuse for you. Mr Hitchcock may refer to you as a “professional book putter backer,” but you’ve told us before that your job is more involved with data research, and you are clearly one of the best of the admittedly too few posters here at using Teh Google to look up information. It took me about three seconds to access the list of Arab members of the Knesset, and it shouldn’t have taken you much longer than that. It took longer to go to the biographies of the 14 Arab members listed, to check the religion of all of them, but that first page listed Raleb Majadele as the “First Muslim Arab Minister,” so you didn’t have to go any further to see that yes, there are Arabs in the Knesset, and yes, there was at least one Muslim in the Knesset.

  37. As for Ciamak Moresadegh, the Iranian Constitution specifies five reserved seats (out of 290, and to be expanded to 310) in the Majlis for religious minorities, one of which is reserved for a Jew. But members must sign an oath that they are committed to the Iranian revolution and constitution, something the members of the Knesset are not required to do, and some of the opposition Knesset members are very much anti-Zionist and opposed to declaring Israel to be a Jewish state.

    But, you probably knew that, too.

  38. Examining Dana’s cite, let us look at the contradiction, an example of the constant rhetorical problems involved in this conflict:

    The Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday in Ramallah, sharpening his tone ahead of the PA’s intended statehood bid at the U.N. in September.

    “We will not accept any orders to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” Abbas said, slamming the Quartet’s stance that the Palestinians must agree to Israel’s demand on the issue.

    The first statement by Shlomo Cesana and Israel Hayom Staff, in this op/ed, does not correspond to the Abbas quotation in the second paragraph.

    A little further down in the piece we find this same rhetorical problem repeated again:

    In an address delivered to Muslim religious leaders in Ramallah on Saturday, Abbas claimed the goal of the PA’s statehood bid was not to “isolate” Israel or to create conflict with the U.S. Rather, Abbas said, Palestinians want to fulfill their “dream” for the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state on territories they say were occupied in 1967, as well as for full U.N. membership.

    Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman issued a caustic response to Abbas’s comments on Saturday, saying that the Palestinian leader’s comments pointed to an ulterior Palestinian motive. “Abbas has revealed the true purpose behind his plan in September – a Palestinian state in the place of Israel,” Lieberman said.

    Lieberman said that “the Palestinians do not really want a state living side by side in peace with Israel, but rather a state free of Jews in Judea and Samaria, and a hostile takeover of Israel from within.”

    Abbas is referring to the pre-1967 boundaries, which should be the Palestinian State, Lieberman is turning this statement around, claiming that Abbas is calling for “a Palestinian state in place of Israel”, which is clearly not what Abbas stated.

    In my mind, Lieberman represents the Israeli equivalent of Hamas, both being major impediments to the peace process.

    Regarding the pre-1967 borders in future negotiations, if they ever occur, will be swapping the illegal Israeli settlements for equivalent land for the Palestinians, which will be to the disfavor of the Palestinians because their West Bank will be configured like a network of Israeli properties. How can a stable two states exist with this geography? No doubt in my mind that the Israelis will continue to expand their settlements regardless, as the are also doing in Arab East Jerusalem.

    So I ask you, which side is it who is after a one state solution for Palestine? The answer to that is obvious!

    PS: Hube, did you read my cite?

    [Added: I am sorry to say that I see little chance for a peaceful, two state solution anytime soon. In my view, the Israelis have made this difficult to impossible with their illegal settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and their legal incursions in East Jerusalem. Moreover, we have the Israeli insistence that Jerusalem be their capital solely, a non-starter for the Palestinians.]

  39. The Phoenician wrote:

    The Israelis echoed our own history: a growing group of immigrants came to the land, and conquered it, declaring their independence as they did so.

    Complete with ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants?

    I’ve said it before: if the Israelis had expelled all of the Palestinians from the lands they conquered, it would have been unbelievably harsh, but the problems there we have today would not now exist.

    It seems to me that if this is your “logic”, you can’t complain when Palestinians use terrorism against Israelis – they’re just trying to conquer their land back.

    Oh, that’s certainly true enough . . . but it also means I can take sides and hope for and support the Israelis winning those battles against the Palestinians. And it also means that I can recognize the differences between decent people — the Israelis — and an unfortunate people who allow themselves to be led by criminals and thugs, the Palestinians.

    You, of course, have a right to take sides as well. How interesting it is, though, that I always seem to be taking the side of democracies, while you invariably support tyrants and dictators and, yes, terrorists.

  40. One statement from Perry says it all:

    In my mind, (Avigdor) Lieberman represents the Israeli equivalent of Hamas, both being major impediments to the peace process.

    Let’s see, one uses words, while the other uses rockets and bombs, but, in your mind — to use your wording — they are equivalent.

  41. Well, there are no “Palestinians” in the Knesset, because Knesset membership is restricted to Israeli citizens, and the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.

    If they’re not Israeli citizens, then they must be citizens of some other country – which means Palestine is already a country.

    Either that or Israel is a racist apartheid state deliberately excluding some of its proper inhabitants based on their race.

  42. Once again, the Phoenician errs:

    If they’re not Israeli citizens, then they must be citizens of some other country – which means Palestine is already a country.

    Actually, no: they are legally stateless persons.

    If it is your contention that the Palestinians living in the occupied territories must be citizens of Israel, then you are also saying that the occupied territories must be a legal part of Israel.

  43. So I ask you, which side is it who is after a one state solution for Palestine? The answer to that is obvious!

    Yawn. The only answer that is obvious is that you’re a complete idiot.

  44. If it is your contention that the Palestinians living in the occupied territories must be citizens of Israel, then you are also saying that the occupied territories must be a legal part of Israel.

    Alas for your weasellry, Israel claims Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel are not Israelis.

    Israel is a racially apartheid nation.

  45. The Phoenician wrote:

    If it is your contention that the Palestinians living in the occupied territories must be citizens of Israel, then you are also saying that the occupied territories must be a legal part of Israel.

    Alas for your weasellry, Israel claims Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel are not Israelis.

    If that is true, so what? Every nation gets to define who is and who is not a citizen, and simply being born in a particular place does not, everywhere, qualify someone for citizenship.

    Israel is a racially apartheid nation.

    You seem to think, by using idiotic code-words, that I’ll somehow be horrified; you shouldn’t assume such things. The Jews tried life, for 1900 years, as being a minority population, spread throughout Europe, and that didn’t work out particularly well for them. Israel exists because, after centuries of oppression and pogromi, they suffered genocide, and the survivors decided that, Hell no, they were not going to trust their survival to the consent and courtesy of larger populations. They will have their own country, where they will be the majority, and I don’t blame them one little bit for that.

  46. If that is true, so what?

    If it excludes Arabs born there but gives it to Jews regardless of borth, then it is a racially apartheid nation.

    You seem to think, by using idiotic code-words, that I’ll somehow be horrified;

    No – I think any decent person would be contemptous of apartheid nations. You, I don’t expect anything from at all, save evasion and propaganda.

    [retrieved - pH]

  47. Comment in moderation.

    BTW – article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Article 15

    1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

    2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

    But since you don’t give a sh1t about US democracy, the Constitution, or your own religion, why should you care about human rights?

Comments are closed.