Showing posts with label Palestinian State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian State. Show all posts

Sunday, 9 October 2011

Love of the Land: (Video) Why not support a Palestinian state? Top 3 reasons.

(Video) Why not support a Palestinian state? Top 3 reasons.

andrewsummey
Sep 20, 2011
H/T Daphne Anson

A countdown of the top three reasons why anyone (in their right mind) should not support a Palestinian state. A humorous, yet frightening look at Palestinian society.




If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.


Love of the Land: (Video) Why not support a Palestinian state? Top 3 reasons.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

Love of the Land: [Security:Sovereignty balance] Rahm Emanuel: Now is not the time for a new Mideast peace plan

[Security:Sovereignty balance] Rahm Emanuel: Now is not the time for a new Mideast peace plan


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
21 April '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

Here it is. Read it carefully:

"start to make the hard decisions to bring a balance between the aspirations of the Israelis for security and make that blend with the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their sovereignty"

Here is what one suspects Emanuel meant: You Israelis are correct that a sovereign Palestinian state will compromise the security of the Jewish State. So I am not going to debate you on this issue. I am not going to argue that jumping off the roof may kill you. But you have to "blend" your desire not to die as you slam into the pavement and the need to create a sovereign Palestinian state. By the way - our bond is unbreakable but youdamn well better jump off the roof.

But since Emanuel introduced the idea that there is a need for balance then here is an Israeli interpretation: a sovereign Palestinian state is a step towards the destruction of Israel. This isn't the view of some small minority. The polls shows that both in Israel and among American Jews the overwhelming majority recognize that the Palestinians see the "two state solution" as no more than a step towards the "final solution" - Israel destroyed.

The "hard decision" is for the Palestinians to back down for sovereign state and switch gears to "autonomous state", with Israel making more "hard decisions" to maximize the ability of such an "autonomous state" to thrive. This can mean spending, for example, more money on security technology to further expedite Palestinian commerce.

Interestingly, a good part of the "nation building" activity in the current two year PA program jibes with "autonomous sate" building as much as "sovereign state" building.]

========================================================

Rahm Emanuel: Now is not the time for a new Mideast peace plan
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent Last update - 18:57 20/04/2010
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164182.html

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in an interview on Monday that the time has not come yet for a new U.S. Mideast peace proposal.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: [Security:Sovereignty balance] Rahm Emanuel: Now is not the time for a new Mideast peace plan

Friday, 16 April 2010

Love of the Land: Policy Debate - A Matter of Connecting The Dots

Policy Debate - A Matter of Connecting The Dots


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
15 April '10

Dividing Jerusalem and putting the Old City under international administration will bring conflict – not peace.

Israel has to control the Jordan Valley in any deal with the Palestinians.

American guarantees that a Palestinian state would remain demilitarized can’t be relied upon.

A security pact signed by the United State can’t take the place of territory vital for Israel’s security.

It is naïve to think that withdrawing to the ’67 lines will bring Israel an enduring peace.

These are among the “dots” that polls, such as the recent survey carried out for IMRA by Maagar Mochot, consistently indicate the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree on.

And that’s important.

Because while withdrawal advocates may enjoy the support of most of the media as well as financial assistance from foreign governments and their surrogates, the dots back their opponents.

And it is considerably easier to enter a policy debate when all that’s left to do is connect the dots that the public already acknowledges.

That’s not just the situation in Israel.

Here is what American Jews answered last month when asked the most fundamental of questions in an poll commissioned by the AJC:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
Agree 75% Disagree 20% Not Sure 5%

Outright rejection of the working premise of “withdrawal brings peace” religion.

That’s not to say policy advocates should be complacent. If anything, they should be encouraged by the results to make the effort to get the public to connect the dots.


Love of the Land: Policy Debate - A Matter of Connecting The Dots

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Love of the Land: Should People Reconsider Support for the Infrastructure of an Entity at War with the State and People of Israel?

Should People Reconsider Support for the Infrastructure of an Entity at War with the State and People of Israel?


David Bedein
Israel Resource Review
22 March '10

Now and then, people remind me of my passionate advocacy for a Palestinian State more than thirty years ago.In a position paper delivered at a Weiss’s Farm Retreat in 1978, I spoke of a Palestinian entity that would comprise Palestinian Arabs whom we knew at the time, who would cast of the yoke of the PLO and engage in genuine coexistence with Israel.

The hope then as that a Palestinian leadership would emerge that would emulate Anwar Sadat, and preach the language of peace and reconciliation to the Palestinian people, in the Arabic language, and that we would be able to build a trust in a new grass roots Palestinian leadership.

However, the potential Palestinian leaders whom were dealing with at the time were replaced by a leadership that will not preach peace and reconciliation to their own people. Instead, the nascent Palestinian entity that has emerged has fostered a draconian system on which they plan their future Palestinian State

Selling land to a Jew would be a capital crime in a state of Palestinian

Perusing the new Palestinian school books, the official Palestinian school curriculum, which was supposed to be a harbinger of peace, inculcates the next generation to make war on the Jews.

Most Recently, journalist academic Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated the new Palestinian school books, made presentations for American congressional staffers in DC and for European diplomats in Brussels which showed how PA textbooks, instead of educating for peace with Israel, promote the violent struggle for liberation against Israel. From these textbooks, Groiss showed that the PA curriculum teaches the following fundamentals:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Should People Reconsider Support for the Infrastructure of an Entity at War with the State and People of Israel?

Sunday, 14 March 2010

Love of the Land: American Foreign Policy Fraud

American Foreign Policy Fraud


JINSA Report #971
12 March '10

Presidents of the United States don't have to make friends, have friends or be friends. They do, however, have to manage America's foreign policy interests. The Obama Administration, by essentially demanding that Israel produce a Palestinian state even when the Palestinians are fractured and unable (they've never been willing) to deliver on the most minor promise, has elevated ideology over American foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

America's interest is to mute radical ideology and squelch terrorism, including Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism aimed at Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and funded and protected primarily by Syria and Iran-and increasingly, by Turkey. The Obama Administration's interest is Palestine. America's interest is to find a way to remove the Iranian threat from the Gulf and the rest of the Middle East. The Obama Administration's interest is Palestine. America's interest is to support consensual government and human rights. The Obama Administration's interest is Palestine. America's interest is to support democratic countries tied to us by values, history and security; to support Israel. The Obama Administration's interest is Palestine.

Vice President Biden's trip to Israel has been widely described as an intended "love fest," ruined by the Israeli announcement of new houses to be built in their capital. Friends of Israel bewailed the timing-though not the substance-of the announcement and asked with chagrin why Israel couldn't once, just once, get its PR right. Mr. Biden rudely kept Prime Minster and Mrs. Netanyahu waiting for dinner while he scoured his thesaurus for a diplomatic word for "condemn." In the end, he settled for "condemn." The Palestinians sniffed into their handkerchiefs that their delicate feelings had been bruised, and took to their beds unable to bear the thought of proximity talks.

What a fraud. Well, most of it is a fraud. The timing of the announcement probably did surprise the Israeli prime minister-although even if he had known, he also knew that Mrs. Clinton had publicly accepted that Israel's slowing of house building specifically did not apply to Jerusalem. But everything else is a fraud.

Mr. Biden did not come to make nice to Israel. The policy of the President-at whose behest he came-is to make Israel cough up Palestine. Mr. Biden's job was to move toward that goal. If sweet-talking the Israelis first was part of the deal, fine. But since it wasn't Israel holding up the works, it was the Palestinians, condemning Israel to entice the Palestinians always had to have been part of the plan. If the Israelis hadn't obliged with the announcement of apartments, Mr. Biden certainly would have taken on the Jewish "heritage sites," which the administration has already condemned. Or he would have fallen back on "settlements" or "checkpoints" or the "humiliation" of the Palestinians. The Palestinians, for their part, planned to accept whatever gifts Mr. Biden brought them and never, never, ever intended to be serious partners to either side.

The narrative before this week was that President Obama wasn't properly understood by Israel as a friend. The truth is that he was properly understood.

Love of the Land: American Foreign Policy Fraud

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Love of the Land: Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State

Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State


David Gutmann
American Spectator
05 March '10

President Barack Obama will soon be entering the lion's den of Middle East politics with the same conviction that has guided all his predecessors -- that the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict lies in the Two-State Solution, leading to the early establishment of a Palestinian state.

The received wisdom has it that the Palestinians wish above all things to have a state of their own, but that their fervent wishes are frustrated by Israeli delaying tactics, such as endless arguments over West Bank settlements, security fences, water rights, and the like.

While the Israelis probably do not want a Palestinian state on their borders, an entity that could easily become Hamastan II (and yet another missile launching platform), there is increasing evidence that the Palestinians themselves are of two minds about the prospect of their own statehood.

The first piece of evidence is the unchallenged observation that Palestinian leaders have rejected or sabotaged every proposal for statehood since 1947. In that year the Palestinians rejected the UN-sponsored division of the former British mandate into Jewish and Arab states on the grounds that they did not want to share Palestine with the infidel Jews. Instead of developing trheir own state, they tried through armed conflict to eradicate the nascent Jewish state. Their leaders took this big step just two years after the end of the Holocaust; and, guided by Hitler's associate Haj Amin Al-Husseini, their implicit goal was to continue the slaughter. But if you start a war of politicide plus extermination you had better win it; otherwise, like Hitler, or Tojo, or the Palestinians of 1948, you will very likely end up with a bombed-out wasteland, or -- in the Palestinian case -- as a defeated rabble of landless refugees.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Why the Palestinians Don't Want a State

Friday, 22 January 2010

Love of the Land: Henry Siegman Promotes Forceful Intervention Against Israel

Henry Siegman Promotes Forceful Intervention Against Israel


Steven Stotsky
CAMERA/Middle East Issues
18 January '10

Throughout his years as a commentator on the Israeli-Arab conflict, Henry Siegman has consistently towed the Palestinian line that Israel is to blame for the failure to resolve the conflict. In a Jan. 25, 2010 article in The Nation, Siegman essentially promotes the current strategy of the Palestinian Authority leadership to bypass a negotiated settlement with Israel in favor of "forceful outside intervention." The purpose of this strategy is to compel Israel to accept a Palestinian state under the conditions demanded by the Palestinians.

That Siegman would look approvingly upon the adoption of coercive tactics against Israel is no surprise. He has long painted Israel as recalcitrant and unworthy of support. At the same time, Siegman is an apologist for Palestinian rejectionism. When questioned in 2004 about former PLO leader Yasser Arafat's legacy of condoning terrorism, Siegman could only offer that "his mistakes played into the hands of those in Israel" like Ariel Sharon to deny Palestinian statehood that the United Nations affirmed in 1947. He failed to mention that it was the Palestinian leadership itself that rejected the UN resolution to establish both a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. He then went on to equate Palestinian terrorism with the actions of Israel's founders.

Siegman remains in high demand among media outfits that consistently favor the Palestinians despite his poor record of assessing the situation. In 2004, after being asked if there was any possibility that Hamas would rule the Palestinians, he assured that there was "no likelihood of Hamas forming a government." Then, after Hamas won control of the Gaza Strip in 2006, Siegman stumped for American engagement with the hardline Islamist group, insisting that this "presents possibilities for a peace agreement that were simply impossible with a Palestinian authority that was run by Fatah." Once that gambit failed and with Hamas's increasing diplomatic isolation, Siegman took up the new Fatah strategy to unilaterally adopt Palestinian demands against Israel's objections.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Henry Siegman Promotes Forceful Intervention Against Israel

Saturday, 16 January 2010

Love of the Land: Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"

Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"


Eli E. Hertz
Hudson New York
15 January '10

Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is anti-Semitism.

For over 46 years, Turkey has knocked on Europe's door requesting membership in the European Union. The Europeans, however, have been in no rush to invite a Muslim country into their midst, even if it is the most westernized and most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. To add to it, Turkey is already a strategic partner in NATO and nearly 3 million of its citizens are peaceful and productive immigrants/guest workers in Europe.

Joining the EU, however, demands of Turkey far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground" and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while the Turks prove democratic changes are "irreversible."

On the other end, U.S. [and the Quartet] yardsticks for the Palestinian Arabs, a hostile society demanding statehood, amount to praise for fabricated non-existent reforms and call to abandon the required incremental progress as clearly stated in the "goal-driven Roadmap."

The end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have yet to begin, is tolerable by the U.S. administration -- all in order to forge the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, one which will endanger the very survival of a free and democratic Israel and the rest of the free world.

Comparison of the goals and the ramifications of each:

The Turks' goal is membership in the European Union - a political alliance that the Europeans have already stated will have an iron-clad reversibility clause for Turkey if it fails to live up to its commitments.

The Palestinians' goal is sovereignty as a State - status for which there is no reversibility mechanism if 'Palestine' turns into a rogue state - the kind of polity the U.S. is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and elsewhere.

Logically, the yardsticks of judging readiness and maturity should be at least equal, if not more stringent for the Palestinian Arabs, a society that consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage, with a leadership that champions the murder of Jews and suicide bombers.

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"

Thursday, 14 January 2010

Love of the Land: An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State

An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State


Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit
21 Tevet, 5770
07 January '10

At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:

A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.

B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter – something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.

C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.

There are three facts on the ground that support this position:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: An Alternative to a 'Palestinian' State

Thursday, 31 December 2009

Love of the Land: Another Year, Another Peace Process

Another Year, Another Peace Process


Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
31 December 09

Carl in Jerusalem has a perceptive analysis of Secretary Clinton’s statement on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, addressing some of the concerns in my post about the omitted phrase “defensible borders” — a diplomatic term of art that has been dropped without explanation from the lexicon of the Obama administration.

Carl notes another significant omission, this time on the Palestinian side: Clinton referred to the goal of an “independent and viable” Palestinian state but omitted a word that has been insisted upon by the Palestinians:

There’s a key word missing here: contiguous. I have argued many times on this blog that if a ‘Palestinian’ state is contiguous, then by definition the Jewish state would be neither contiguous nor secure. Thus Clinton’s omission of the word contiguous from her formulation, if tracked in the [potential] letter to the “Palestinians,” is significant.

There may be a connection here. If a “contiguous” Palestinian state is not consistent with an Israeli one with “defensible” borders — and vice versa — Clinton may have simply ducked the issue by leaving both words out of her statement.

As the year ends, it is time for a broader look at the peace process, which has to date produced three Israeli withdrawals (from Lebanon, Gaza, and part of the West Bank); three Israeli offers of a Palestinian state (at Camp David, in the Clinton Parameters, and during the Annapolis Process); three Palestinian rejections; and three wars – one from each area of the withdrawal. The enterprise is apparently too big to fail, even though it repeatedly does.

(Read full post)



Love of the Land: Another Year, Another Peace Process

Monday, 14 December 2009

Love of the Land: More European imperialism

More European imperialism


FresnoZionism.org
11 December 09

The European Union (EU) has ’softened’ the Swedish proposal which declared that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state. Now they are saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of both Israel and Palestine.


However, they have not changed the most outrageous part of it, something that I haven’t seen anyone else call attention to. That is this:


The EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.


The literal interpretation of this is that as long as there is no comprehensive agreement the EU considers Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem still to be under Jordanian control, and Gaza Egyptian.


Of course we know they don’t mean that. What they seem to mean is that unless Israel and the Palestinians agree otherwise, Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem are ‘Palestinian’.


Israel’s position is that Judea and Samaria are disputed and all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel. The present (not so) ‘right wing’ government of PM Netanyahu has made clear that there could be changes in borders in the context of a peace agreement. But the EU is saying that the these areas are ‘Palestinian land’ by default.


According to Israel’s point of view, there should be no difference between Israeli and Palestinian building activity in Judea and Samaria. But by agreeing to the settlement freeze — even though it is supposedly ‘in the interest of bringing the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table’ — Israel has weakened its position. This is unfortunate, especially since the Palestinians won’t come to the table anyway, and there has already been conflict between Jewish residents and Israeli “building inspectors” and police as a result.


If the Palestinians carry out their on-and-off threat to unilaterally declare a state according to pre-1967 borders, the EU will recognize it regardless of what Israel does.


The EU has no legitimate authority to determine boundaries in the Middle East and they should stop trying to do it. Let them concentrate on legislating about minarets in their own countries.



Love of the Land: More European imperialism

Thursday, 19 November 2009

Love of the Land: The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel With the False Charge of Apartheid

The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel With the False Charge of Apartheid


Robbie Sabel
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
19 November 09

If Israel's detractors can associate the Jewish movement for self-determination with the Apartheid South African regime, they will have done lasting and maybe irreparable damage. Yet the comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system.

Israel is a multi-racial and multi-colored society, and the Arab minority actively participates in the political process. There are Arab parliamentarians, Arab judges including on the Supreme Court, Arab cabinet ministers, Arab heads of hospital departments, Arab university professors, Arab diplomats in the Foreign Service, and very senior Arab police and army officers. Incitement to racism in Israel is a criminal offence, as is discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

The accusation is made that the very fact that Israel is considered a Jewish state proves an "Apartheid-like" situation. Yet the accusers have not a word of criticism against the tens of liberal democratic states that have Christian crosses incorporated in their flags, nor against the Muslim states with the half crescent symbol of Islam. For a Western state, with Jewish and Muslim minorities, to have Christmas as a national holiday is permissible, but for Israel to celebrate Passover as a national holiday is somehow racist. For various Arab states to denote themselves as Arab Republics is not objectionable.

Zionism is perhaps the only national movement that has received explicit support and endorsement both from the League of Nations and from the United Nations. It was the League of Nations that approved the mandate for Palestine with its ringing endorsement of "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The real goal behind the Apartheid campaign is the denial of the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the determination that the only status the Jewish population in Israel can hope for is that of a "protected" ethnic minority in an Arab Palestinian state.

Click here to read the full paper.
*Dr. Robbie Sabel served as Legal Adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1985 to 1993, and is a visiting Professor of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Love of the Land: The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel With the False Charge of Apartheid

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Palestinians may declare state. So?


FresnoZionism.org
15 November 09


The latest Palestinian threat is that they will unilaterally declare a state:

Bethlehem – Ma’an/Agencies – The Palestinian Authority is mobilizing international support for declaring statehood, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Saturday.

“The idea is clear and understandable,” Erekat told the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam. “Now we mobilize.”

Palestinians will bring the issue to a vote before the United Nations Security Council, which would declare a Palestinian state on the 4 June 1967 border with Israel, he explained.

This is supposed to strike fear into the heart of PM Netanyahu and his (not really so) right-wing government. But imagine the conversation:

Saeb Erekat: We are unilaterally declaring a state.

Binyamin Netanyahu: A state? But you could have had one in 2000. Why didn’t you accept it? Or what about the offer that Olmert made last year, supposedly even worse — I mean, more generous — then the Camp David and Taba ideas? He offered you 98.1% of Judea of Samaria plus a connecting passage through Israel from Gaza, most of East Jerusalem, and to allow 5,000 ‘refugees’ to enter Israel. Why didn’t you say ‘yes’ to that?

SE: Because we want all of East Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. And we want all 5 million Arab refugees to have the right to return to their homes in Israel even if they never lived in them. And we aren’t going to say that Israel belongs to the Jewish people because it belongs to the Arabs that live there now and the ones who will return.

BN: That’s absurd. We’d never agree to that — it would mean the end of the Jewish state.

SE: Bingo.

BN: Well, declare whatever you want. But then you won’t get any land swaps, we won’t evacuate any settlements, and you won’t get ‘contiguity’ to Gaza. You will be in violation of all the agreements that you signed, and you’ll freeze the map as it is today, with no more territory in your hands. You’ll be Foreign Minister of Ramallah.

SE: But the Security Council will protect our new state. The UN will come and kick all 500,000 Jewish settlers [he's including the Jewish population of E. Jerusalem -- ed.] out of our land!

BN: So you are telling me that even the Obama administration wouldn’t veto a resolution to send UN troops to fight the IDF? Because that’s what it would take.

SE: We’ll have our capital in Holy Jerusalem!

BN: But if you won’t negotiate, you’ll get none of East Jerusalem. Even my administration, which is not as right-wing as some say, would agree to negotiate Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Declare a state unilaterally and you’ll just make the present status quo permanent. Is that really what you want?

SE: (losing it) What we really want is to end the occupation, from the river to the sea!

BN: Bingo. But you aren’t going to get that. So you can either keep things as they are today — either by unilaterally declaring a state or by just continuing to refuse to talk — or you can finally accept that “two-state solution” means that one of those two states will belong to the Jewish people, and make a deal.

(Continue reading)



Love of the Land: Palestinians may declare state. So?

Monday, 20 July 2009

Israel Matzav: 'Manage the conflict' says... Khaled Abu Toameh

'Manage the conflict' says... Khaled Abu Toameh

Canada's National Post has a profile of JPost's Arab affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh (pictured). I urge those of you who have never read a profile of this fascinating man to do so. Although I knew most of what was in this article already, I thought Abu Toameh's take on the current state of affairs to be interesting, if not very surprising.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'Manage the conflict' says... Khaled Abu Toameh

Monday, 13 July 2009

Israel Matzav: The more things change, the more they stay the same - Part 2

The more things change, the more they stay the same - Part 2

On Friday, I posted a 50-year old video of an interview with then-Israeli ambassador to the US and the UN Abba Eban. I titled the post The more things change, the more they stay the same, because the charges Eban was being called to answer were so remarkably similar to the charges made against Israel today.

This post is also entitled The more things change, the more they stay the same, but this time we are going to look at the flip side. We are going to look at how little the aims of the PLO and Fatah have changed over the last sixty years.

The video you are about to watch is the first part in a six-part series on al-Jazzeera about the history of Fatah and the PLO. The first thing I want you to notice is the date of the PLO's founding, which happened before the 1967 war. That ought to be enough to prove to you that the PLO's goals - which have never been changed - are to destroy the Jewish state of Israel and not just to create a 'Palestinian' state.

Israel Matzav: The more things change, the more they stay the same - Part 2

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Israel Matzav: Saying no to a 'Palestinian state'

Saying no to a 'Palestinian state'

There's a great article by Daniel Doron in Saturday's Forbes.com. I am going to give you a teaser and then you should read the whole thing.

The most common approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, held by the well-connected Peace Now camp, holds that the conflict is about nationhood and territory. It blames Israel for the conflict, claiming Israel's reluctance to fully withdraw its settlements from the West Bank (it did from Gaza) denies the Palestinian Arabs a contiguous territory and enough living space to assert their sovereignty

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Saying no to a 'Palestinian state'

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Israel Matzav: 'Lunatic, dangerously detached from reality' (and proud of it)

'Lunatic, dangerously detached from reality' (and proud of it)

Moshe Feiglin gets it right in this piece at Arutz Sheva.

Today, those who claim that there is no Palestinian nation are considered lunatics, dangerously detached from reality. But what has happened in Israel in the last month shows that from the moment that the wall of Israeli non-recognition of those claiming sovereignty in our land was breached, Israel's demise began. When we recognized their claims to sovereignty in Israel as valid, we lost our own. It is like a seesaw.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'Lunatic, dangerously detached from reality' (and proud of it)

Friday, 24 April 2009

ESSER AGAROTH - Just Say No


Our leaders must clearly tell US that two-state solution not in our best interest.

Yoel Meltzer
29 Nissan 5796/April 23, 2009

With the American leadership intensifying its demand that Israel accept the “two-state solution,” the slogan “just say no” used by former first lady Nancy Reagan as part of the 1980s campaign against adolescent drug abuse keeps popping into my head. Although perhaps overly simplistic, many argue that her words went a long way in raising awareness to the problem. At this time, our present leadership would do well to adopt the same slogan.

Esser Agaroth - Just Say No

Thursday, 23 April 2009

Israel Matzav: Do they really want a state?

Do they really want a state?

Jakub Grygiel, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins may have finally figured out the 'Palestinians,' and because of him so has Robert D. Kaplan, a writer at the Atlantic. Although I disagree with much of Kaplan's article (which includes encouraging the Obama administration to pressure Israel - if he's correct in his diagnosis of the 'Palestinians' there is no moral justification for doing that), this part in the middle is dead on. The 'Palestinians' don't have a state because they don't want one:
Read All in :

Israel Matzav: Do they really want a state?

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

THE "REAL" TWO-STATE SOLUTION

THE "REAL" TWO-STATE SOLUTION


Hudson New York
How to Build a Palestinian State

The words and deeds of many Palestinian officials, whether they are from Fatah or Hamas, do not seem to be bringing the Palestinians closer to fulfilling their aspiration of creating a modern and democratic state next to Israel.
In this regard, the Palestinian Authority leaders in the West Bank are continuing to act [and speak] in a way that only radicalizes Palestinians and demonizes Israel and the Jewish people.
Preparing for statehood is not only about building infrastructure and institutions; it is also about educating the people about the importance of living in peace with your neighbors and respecting their right to live insecurity.
Almost every day, the Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the secular Fatah faction, provides the world with evidence that it is not leading its constituents toward the path of moderation and co-existence. And this is without mentioning what Hamas is saying and doing.
If the Palestinians were serious about building their own state, they should not wait for Israel or any other country to present it to them as a gift.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested perhaps half of the money that went into Yasser Arafat’s secret bank accounts or to support the shopping sprees of his wife in Paris, it is highly likely that the Palestinians would by now have had their own state.
Had the Palestinian leadership built schools, hospitals, universities and housing projects instead of building a casino, there is no doubt that the Palestinians would have had their state several years ago.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested some of the billions of dollars for the welfare of its people, combating poverty and unemployment, it is certain that the Palestinians would not have resorted to violence in September 2000. That is because when the Palestinians launched the second intifada, many people had nothing to lose.
So has the Palestinian Authority since learned from its mistakes?
No.
While it is true that the economic situation in the West Bank has improved in the past two years, largely thanks to the fact that the international donors have finally begun holding Palestinian leaders accountable and are pressing harder for transparency, the messages coming out of the Palestinian leadership are not encouraging.
In the past week alone, the “moderate” Palestinian leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas took two decisions that will only have a negative impact on the future of the “peace process.”
First, Abbas’s representatives dismantled a Palestinian teenager musical band for performing in front of Holocaust survivors in the Israeli city of Holon. An Israeli-Arab woman who was in charge of the ban has been told by Abbas’s lieutenants that her life would be in danger if she ever showed her face again in Jenin. Fatah activists later sealed her apartment and confiscated all the musical equipment, accusing her of “exploiting” the children for a “political event” - the Holocaust.
In the second case, Abbas’s Chief Islamic Judge, Tayseer Tamimi, issued another fatwa [religious decree] that imposes the death sentence on any Palestinian who sells his lands to Jews.
And then there is Mohammed Dahlan, one of Fatah’s senior operatives who is closely associated with Abbas, who went on Palestine TV to proudly declare that his faction has never recognized Israel’s right to exist.
He also boasted that as a former security commander he and Fatah had killed more suspected Palestinian “collaborators” with Israel than Hamas.
Dahlan, who has long been hailed by US Administration officials as a “moderate” leader and a staunch supporter of the peace process, even went as far as urging Hamas not to succumb to pressure to accept Israel’s right to exist.
The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank has also been fighting “normalization” with Israel by boycotting Israeli products and banning Palestinian teenagers from participating in joint Jewish-Arab events aimed at promoting tolerance and coexistence.
It is no wonder then that public opinion polls continue to show that Hamas’s popularity is on the rise and that a majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings.
Over the past few weeks, numerous Palestinian spokesmen have been warning against the “dangers” of having a right-wing government in Israel. According to these spokesmen, the rise of Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to power is an indication of the Israeli public’s shift to the right and the beginning of the end of the “peace process.”
The Palestinian officials say they are particularly worried about Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the two-state solution.
But were these folks expecting? That Netanyahu and Lieberman would give them more than what former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin had either given the Palestinians or offered to give them?
There is absolutely no reason why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu should be worried about American and European pressure on him to accept the two-state solution.
Even if Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution tomorrow, he will quickly discover that the Palestinian Authority in particular and the Palestinians in general are the least prepared for establishing an independent and normal state alongside Israel.
Netanyahu and Lieberman can sit relaxed. Even if they offered the Palestinians a state, they will discover that there is no credible partner, neither in Ramallah nor in the Gaza Strip, to deal with.
Finally, the failure of the Hamas-Fatah “reconciliation” talks means that the world will have to live with the fact that the two-state solution has already been realized. In the end, the Palestinians got two states - a mini-Islamic republic in the Gaza Strip and an incompetent, powerless and unreliable entity in parts of the West Bank.
taken from:B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...