For Peace, Muslim Public Affairs Council MPAC Has to Show Respect to Reality

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

And over here Virginia we have an excellent example of a seasoned political operative exercising her trade; open-faced, warmly sincere, and accidently self-serving, distortions of basic reality. Also take note of the masterly avoidance of any substantial discussion of the actual text of the speech, or, for that matter the actual reaction of Congress to Mr. Netanyahu’s words. MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has

It is no wonder Abbas said that Netanyahu’s speech before the joint meeting of Congress was a “declaration of war against the Palestinians.” The “Palestinian Narrative” demands victim status for the proper strategic placement to finally “Solve” the Nakba; Hamas is the historical and ideological heir to the Muftif of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the man who encouraged Hitler to adopt the rabidly innovative new idea for Europe’s “Final Solution”.  Husayni commanded a Nazi SS division of Muslim soldiers, only failing to implement his own Middle Eastern Holocaust because of the decline of Germany’s falling on the defensive and subsequent loss in WWII.

But, after all, Netanyahu’s adherence to the actual armistice agreement from all the way back in ‘48 is hardly a shock; Israel always was supposed to have a negotiated border based on the “Green Line” where, for the most part, troops happened to be when the final ceasefire was called. From ‘48 to ‘67 Gaza was effectively a part of Egypt and The West Bank was part of Jordan; neither country EVER made a single move, or even suggested, that the “Palestinians” needed a state of their own.

Then in ‘67 Egypt illegally blockaded Israeli shipping and sent it’s entire armored force toward the Israeli border while proclaiming to the world that it was the intention of Egypt to eliminate the state of Israel by a genocidal application of military force.

Here is a quote from Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) (italics added)

“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF (a UN peacekeeping force “invited” to stand aside, or else by Egypt prior to the massing of the invasion force – Guy DeWhitney). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

On to MPAC’s all too commonly disingenuous “analysis of Mr. Netanyahu’s amazingly blunt and refreshingly honest speech…

“Last week, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for the Middle East, rooted in the principle that change is inevitable, and that democracy, human rights and self-determination will continue to ultimately move the region to a better place. For too long, dictators ran the region, many of whom deliberately held the Mid-East peace process hostage for their own personal gain and popularity.”

Well, we all know how willing the Arab states have been to sit down and hammer out a settlement, right? The following undisputed quotes paint a different picture of the Muslim attitude on the ground I am afraid…

“You understand that we  plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by   psychological warfare and population explosion….I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews.”
Yasser Arafat speaking to an Arab audience; Stockholm, Sweden 1996

“Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.”
PA Minister Imad Falouji, 2001

“We may lose or win [tactically], but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
Faisal Husseini, PA minister & Jerusalem PLO representative, 2001

Peace Partners, Obama said? “Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin. said the Little Pig”. Back to MPAC’s demonstration of psychological projection…

An important component of the President’s address was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President did not offer anything novel regarding the conflict, but rather re-stated long-running U.S. policy regarding the 1967 borders, which both the Clinton and Bush administrations saw as a starting point for negotiations.

In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat in the White House alongside Obama and called the President’s remarks on the 1967 borders “indefensible” and “throwing Israel under the bus”.  Netanyahu not only questioned President Obama’s intelligence in a 12-minute rambling diatribe in the Oval office on the history of the Middle East, but at the invitation of the congressional Republican leadership, he went so far as to rebut the President’s speech in front of both houses of the United States Congress this week.

And, it seems that much of Congress was receptive to this fresh, almost shocking openness and return to honesty in that sacred chamber. The MPAC fantasy continues…

“Unfortunately, this type of political grandstanding is nothing new from the Republican leadership in Congress. In November 2009, after meeting with Netanyahu in Israel, Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor (leading a 25-person Congressional delegation), said that he would act as a check to the President’s policy in the Middle East. This statement was an unprecedented rebuke by a member of Congress, of an American President on foreign soil. No matter what one’s views are regarding the conflict, it is distasteful for members of Congress to volunteer themselves as theater props in order to discredit the President of the United States.”

A member? hardly; MPAC’s spin-meisteress forgot to add that 30 Representatives and 17 Senators were chosen/volunteered by the VICE PRESIDENT and Speaker of the House to be Netanyahu’s “Escort of Honor”; and yes Virginia, it was a totally bi-partisan group, including BOTH Democratic Senators from California! Oh, and then there were the 27 standing ovations, most of them loud and obviously sincere; there is an element on the Left that claims the entire U.S. Congress is so terrified of Israel that they do not feel they can be SEEN to NOT be enthusiastic, Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght! Oh, we should also note this little piece from the Washington Post: Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel

“No matter how long such political theater continues, the status quo will not move either side forward. Both sides have entrenched themselves.  From the Israeli side, the separation wall continues to be built on Palestinian land and illegal settlements continue to grow. The Palestinians have recently signed a unity agreement, yet there does not seem to be much movement towards a national platform for peace and the use of violence in Gaza continues to set them back.”

What a tribute to the Imagination and genius of the Republican “political theater” staff; twenty seven standing ovations from both sides of the aisle; no less enthusiastic at the end, after Congress being gently slapped in the face with reality,  than at the beginning.

“President Obama cannot produce a peace agreement on his own…”

Of course not, and if he tried I think that this same MPAC writer would likely claim that the U.S. had no right to do any such thing!

“…And while pressure is on Palestinians to make more concessions, the reality is that the Israelis can end the stalemate now if it wanted to have a peace deal.”

This is the first time I have seen “peace deal” used as a euphemism for national and ethnic suicide; given the adamantly stated goals of the Arab nations and the Palestinian “leadership” no other definition can be entertained by the sane and sober.

Here are some more historical quotes to dash a little cold water on this fantasy called the “Palestinian narrative”:

“The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel.”
Ralph Galloway, Director of UNRWA, 1958

“All the Arab countries want to keep this problem looking like an open wound.”
Ana Liria-Franch, UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ regional representative to Cairo, 2003

“If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egyptian President, 1961
“The demand for the return of the Palestinian refugees…is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.”
As’ad Abd-Al Rahman, Minister of Refugee Affairs – Palestinian Authority, 1999

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians… but, instead they abandoned them and, forced them to emigrate and to leave.”
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 1976

“We will smash the country. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said, 1948

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”
Haled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister, 1948-1949

“The fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were our biggest mistake…Palestinians fled in terror.”
Hazem Nusseibeh, editor – Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news in 1948

And now Virginia, back to our regularly scheduled Islamist Apologetics demonstration…

“But Netanyahu’s condescending attitude to our President and by extension our country has to end.  Jeffery Goldberg in an article entitled “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don’t Speak to My President That Way”, in the Atlantic Monthly, said, “…he [Netanyahu] threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise…”

Twenty. Seven. Standing. Ovations. Clearly Congress failed to realize they were being insulted. Myself I thought Netanyahu showed them respect, by simply telling the truth and not playing games with an issue that is of existential aspect to Israel. Look at this bit from…

THE WASHINGTON POST

PETER WALLSTEN

Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election.

The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and other Democrats appeared to reject the president’s reference to the 1967 lines in his latest attempt to nudge along peace talks, thinking that he was giving away too much, too soon.

White House officials say Obama’s assertion did not reflect a shift in U.S. policy. But the president’s comments touched a nerve among pro-Israel activists, drew a rare Oval Office rebuke from Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and instantly became a litmus test in domestic American politics.

Now Obama — whom critics often accuse of employing a play-it-safe governing style in which he waits for others to take the lead — is largely isolated politically in raising the issue of boundaries…

Read It All

The MPAC writer, who, I think, must have slightly less sense than my char-lady, concludes thusly…

“It is not only the left who has been taken back by Netanyahu’s disrespect to the Oval office but even among the conservatives there is criticism of the way he has demeaned the office of the President of the United States.For peace to be a reality, respect for the White House by Netanyahu must be the first condition to any legitimate process.”

Well Virginia, I do not know why I feel disappointed, after all the whole piece up to that point was also nothing but lies, why shouldn’t the conclusion be more of the same? Here is a link to a compilation of CONGRESSIONAL comments regarding the speech… MPAC has to hate it when people actually go to the SOURCE to refute their propagandistic spin-meister/meistress.

Here is a link to the speech itself… Love it!

Methinks the Muslims Are Starting To Annoy Narcissist-in-Chief Obama

MushroomCloud2

Here we have an interesting video of Obama speaking with Netanyahu I found on Al-JazeeraEnglish at YouTube.

I am not sure Obama is happy about the response from the Muslim world on his attempts to appease them.  Maybe reality is setting in and, wonder of wonder, miracles of miracles, Obama is waking up to reality.  I doubt his Marxist-friendly version of Islam is quite what the global Muslim community is aiming for.

I think our dear President may have realized that if he allows Iran to nuke Israel only a lightening fast impeachment could save him from the angry mobs; did someone point out that the Obama name could end up being lower down in esteem of historians than the bigoted, and not-so-bright, (last in his class at West Point) Gen. Custer? IS he aware that the stain on his name could exceed that on Jackson’s for his "Trail of Tears" inflicted on the Cherokee nation?

How else can we explain his slow, but steady reversal of attitude on Israel? (If that is really what is happening, instead of simply a more effective "plausible deniability."

Here is a transcript of a recent interview with Israeli TV by Obama; other than his usual racism and self-absorption this is the most open and honest view of Israel I have seen out of the White House since the Election:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

July 08, 2010

Interview of the President by Yonit Levi, Israeli TV

Diplomatic Reception Room

(Conducted July 7, 2010)

5:23 P.M. EDT

Q    President Barack Obama, shalom, and thank you so much for talking with us today.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Q    I’d like to actually open up by asking you about hope, which was such a prominent notion in your campaign and in your presidency.  And how can you convey that concept of hope to Israelis, who’ve seen so many failed attempts at a peace process?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, it’s always a challenge.  One of the things I used to say during the campaign but also at the beginning of my presidency is, being hopeful is not the same as being blindly optimistic.  I think you have to be clear-eyed about the situation.

And Israelis, rightly, look at the past and have skepticism about what’s possible.  They see the enmity of neighbors that surround them in a very tough neighborhood.  They see a track record of attempts at peace where, even when concessions were made, a deal could not be consummatedThey see rockets fired from Gaza or from areas in Lebanon, and say to themselves that the hatreds or history are so deep-seated that changed is not possible.

And yet, if you think back to the founding of Israel, there were a lot of people who thought that that wasn’t possible either.  And if Herzl or Ben-Gurion were looking at Israel today, they would be astonished at what they saw — a country that’s vibrant, that is growing economically at a extraordinary pace, that has overcome not just security challenges but also has been able to overcome challenges related to geography.  And so that should be a great source of hope.

Unfortunately Barry just can’t seem to stay in the real world; he prefers the warm dream of "what I want" to the somber reality of "what can be done with what we have."

Continue reading

“Islam Claims Jerusalem Too; Mideast: Supporters of Israel consistently attempt to diminish Muslims’ connection to the city.” and Other Fairy Tales

e-s_041

***UPDATE***

“What is truth?” Pilate said, and washed his hands…

Today’s complex world demands a passion for truth, by which I mean accuracy in description, not some nebulous philosophical notion subject to infinite redefinition.

Mankind has always done best when seeing clearly what was in front of our eyes and applying our creativity and will to the parts we found fun, interesting, or that quite simply sucked.  Sadly some people have always preferred to confound truth for their own short term status quotient retarding and delaying the progress of the majority.

This piece started out with me noticing an excerpt, a mere two paragraphs, from the L.A. times. The headline made me pause.  I have always loved history and the mental disconnect with what I knew stopped me in mid-click.

The headline?

Commentary; Islam Claims Jerusalem Too; Mideast: Supporters of Israel consistently attempt to diminish Muslims’ connection to the city.

Los Angeles Times – Los Angeles, Calif.

Subjects: Islam, Territorial issues

Author: RIAD ABDELKARIM; HUSSAM AYLOUSH

Date: Jul 25, 2000

At first I noticed that there was a lot of false information and misleading statements in the piece; then I tried to find any fact that was not false.  And then I looked up the background of the authors, and found that the pre-fertilizer mass descends in close proximity to the genetically spoiled cow.

First I will look at those two, wonderful paragraphs, then let us turn our attention to having a peak at what our intrepid authors have been up to for the last ten years.

Read original here;

In addition to numerous Koran references, several sayings of the Prophet Muhammad focus on the significance of Jerusalem.

From the first sentence truth and realty are very flexible for Riad and Hussam; Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran by name and the only reference at all I can find is to the fact that, very early in his career, he had turned away from the City of the Jews because they had rejected him; this is hardly an intimate, spiritual connection we are talking about here since the name is not even articulated!

The only other “source” of historical “proof” of the ancient connection are hadiths, or sayings of Mohammed, speaking of the al-aqsa (furthest place of worship), a religious term.  So, what happened? Let me allow Dr. Daniel Pipes, Islamic scholar, tell the tale:

“The Koran states that God took Mohammed “by night from the sacred mosque in Mecca to the furthest (al-aqsa) place of worship.” When this passage was revealed (about 621), “furthest place of worship” was a turn of phrase, not a specific place. Decades later, the Umayyads built a mosque in Jerusalem and called it Al-Aqsa. Moslems since then understand the passage about the “furthest place of worship” as referring to Jerusalem.”

However our intrepid authors do not mention this, they simply give the evolved version and move on.

In one saying, the Prophet declares that the reward or blessings for a Muslim who prays in Al Aqsa mosque is multiplied 500 times. In another saying, when asked which were the first mosques established on Earth, the Prophet replied that al Haram mosque (in Mecca) was the first, then Al Aqsa mosque (in Jerusalem). Yet another saying advises Muslims not to undertake difficult journeys except to reach three destinations: al Haram mosque in Mecca, the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, and Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

By now anyone who had doubted the historical connection is supposed to be feeling a bit shamefaced; the blows of falsehood increase in tempo.

While maintaining a strong historical claim to Jerusalem, Muslims also recognize the importance of Jerusalem to the Christian and Jewish faiths.

As is usual with this sort of lie it is put in very reasonable terms, the reader expects things to be just as the author claims in his wounded pride for his noble past.  All is not as it seems on the surface.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/21530 What does a popular Islamic question and fatwa (their terms, not mine) site www.islam.qa.comseems to disagree with Riad and Hussam:

“It is not permissible for a Muslim to make friends with a mushrik non-Muslim] or to take him as a close friend, because Islam calls on us to forsake the kaafirs and to disavow them, because they worship someone other than Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allaah (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of (receiving any good in) the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection)”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:13]

This was also the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

1 – It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2395; Abu Dawood, 4832. Abu ‘Eesa al-Tirmidhi said: this hadeeth is hasan. It was also classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 2519).

Abu ‘Eesa al-Khattaabi said: Rather he warned against keeping company with anyone who is not pious and against mixing with them or eating with them, because eating with a person instills friendship and love in the heart.

…(Ma’aalim al-Sunan, Haamish Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Dawood, 7/185, 186).

2 – It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not live among the mushrikeen [non-Muslims) and do not mix with them, for whoever lives among them or mixes with them is not one of us.” (Narrated by al-Bayhaqi, 9/142; al-Haakim, 2/154. He said, it is saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaari. The hadeeth was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilat al-Saheehah, 2/229 with its corroborating reports).

But it is permissible to deal with them in a kind manner in the hope that they might become Muslim.

That is not quiet what I usually think of as respectfor MY religion or faith.

…And Allaah knows best.”

Maybe so, maybe not, but Riad and Hussam seem to feel that it is permissible to leave the truth at the door in the hope we all might become Muslim. They are really  getting off the ground now, and the truth is far, far below the clouds…

“Centuries of peaceful Islamic rule over Jerusalem, during which Christian and Jewish religious sites were protected and preserved, illustrate the esteem in which these other monotheistic faiths are held.”

This statement could be refuted with a stack of PhD theses as tall as a house; it does not pass even a cursory inspection outside of the literature produced by the likes of CAIR and the House of Saud.

here is a short list compiled in a few minutes:

After the death of Mohammed (638) a small prayer house was built on Temple Mount, Second Jewish Temple site, almost 50 years later (688 to 691 AD) the Dome of the Rock built as well on the same site.

May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion finished capturing (temporarily) the Old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; including  many ancient synagogues and the Western Wall of the Temple. These are and have been for approx 3,000 years, the holiest sites in the Jewish religion.
57 historic synagogues (going back all the way to the 13th century), centers of religious study and Jewish libraries were looted; 12 demolished. Religious structures that remained standing were used as housing and barns; The Western Wall became slums.

Further, the Jordanians refused access to Israeli Jews wishing to visit or worship at the Wailing Wall, Mt. Olives cemetery, Rachel’s tomb, Tomb of Abraham or any other holy places in the West Bank and Jerusalem, violating UN resolutions.

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones, using them for paving roads, as well as construction material for latrines. After re-occupation in 1967, graves were found open, bones scattered. The cemetery had had a paved road cut though; parking lots and even a gas station were built on what had been Jewish graves. Finally, the Intercontinental Hotel was built at one end of the cemetery grounds; the Jordanian appointed caretaker built his house from stones from the ancient graves.

mo1 Here we have the Mount Olives Cemetery under Israel.

mo2d And here it is again after the Jordanians have “shown their respect

The Hurva Synagogue, built in the fifteenth century or earlier and the main synagogue for Jerusalem until  the Ottomans closed it in 1589 due to Muslim incitements; burned by Arabs(1721) it was rebuilt in the 1800’s to become a well known landmark. In 1948, when captured by the Arab Legion it was dynamited as a show of dominance over the Old Jewish Quarter.

Septemer 1996, Palestinians destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, since then periodic attacks have been made on Rachel’s Tomb.
October 2000, The Israelis guarding Joseph’s Tomb were temporarily withdrawn and the shrine was torched to be rebuilt as a mosque!

20b

Let us not forget what was done to those Buddha statues!

I want to interject here a few non-Jewish examples so no one thinks this is a solely Muslim/Israel thing.

In india in the 11th century Mahmud Ghaznavi conducted raids on Temples regularly to finance his other wars.  In the early 13th Delhi Sultans carried on a policy of selective temple desecration for “political” ends. In addition to these and many, many other examples of expedient or politically motivated Temple destruction even the apologist author of Temple Destruction and Muslim States in Medieval India, Richard M. Eaton claims that spanning the period from 1192 to 1729, “one may identify eighty instances of temple desecration” that were motivated only by religious zeal and bigotry.

And then there was the Cordova Mosque, built in Cordova, Spain over the former main Visigothic Church; eventually rededicated by the Spanish as a Cathedral.

“This period of Muslim rule also demonstrates that Muslims have a proven track record of being faithful and just custodians of the Holy City. To this day, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are entrusted to a Muslim family.”

Oh really now? Virginia, shall we look a tad closer at the history of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?

A quick Wikipedia search revealsa slightly different tale than one of devoted and compassionate custodianship. For one thing the aforementioned keys were stolen by the conquering Muslims, who then assigned them to the family, sort of…

“In 1192, Saladin assigned responsibility for it to two neighboring Muslim families. The Joudeh were entrusted with the key, and the Nusseibeh, who had been the custodians of the church since the days of Caliph Omar in 637, retained the position of keeping the door.”

What has been the quality of the stewardship?

“On October 18, 1009, under Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, orders for the complete destruction of the Church were carried out. It is believed that Al-Hakim “was aggrieved by the scale of the Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which was caused specially by the annual miracle of the Holy Fire within the Sepulchre. The measures against the church were part of a more general campaign against Christian places of worship in Palestine and Egypt, which involved a great deal of other damage: Adhemar of Chabannes recorded that the church of St George at Lydda ‘with many other churches of the saints’ had been attacked, and the ‘basilica of the Lord’s Sepulchre destroyed down to the ground’. …

European reaction was of shock and dismay, with far-reaching and intense consequences. For example, Clunaic monk Raoul Glaber blamed the Jews, with the result that Jews were expelled from Limoges and other French towns. Ultimately, this destruction provided an impetus to the later Crusades.[16].”

Well, there we have Riad and Hussam’s 2000 article in a nutshell. Or at least the summery.  But that was 2000, what – you ask, have they been up to since? I am SO glad you asked!

It seems Riad has been to Israel where he was mistaken for a terrorist supporter and detained for a while by the IDF, Jesse Jackson Managed to get this member of THE HOLY LAND FOUNDATION released and back home to L.A. post haste. He is an internal medicine doctor but I cannot find any actual ratings for him in practice.

His partner Hussum’s website has this to say:

Hussam Ayloush is the Southern California Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) (see: http://www.cair.com). Mr. Ayloush frequently lectures on Islam, media relations, civil rights, hate crimes and international affairs. He has consistently appeared in local, national, and international media advocating and articulating the mainstream Muslim position on issues. Full biography at:

http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2006/08/biography-of-hussam-ayloush.html

As you all may know CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials.  For such moderates it is strange just how many convicted terror supporters these men have worked with.  But, I am sure they must be sincere – horribly misinformed about history and of questionable knowledge regarding the meaning of the word “respect”; but, surely GOOD AMERICANS both!

…Right Virginia?
…Virginia?

Heretics Crusade’s Israel Apartheid Week Response Via Latma to The MSA (Muslim Student Association)

More timely video from Carline Glick’s Hebrew satire site Latma. The segment on the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage is hilarious! If Julie Andrews sees this she will have a heart attack THEN turn in her grave; but it is too funny to miss.

For My New Friends at Scripps; Run With It Girls!

 

hereticscrusadethumb

Hear now the words of Kipling, as he reminds America that colonialism was more of a burden than a benefit to Western cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Send forth the best ye breed–

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild–

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit,

And work another’s gain.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

The savage wars of peace–

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to naught.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper–

The tale of common things.

 

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living,

And mark them with your dead.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard–

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–

“Why brought he us from bondage,

Our loved Egyptian night?”

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Ye dare not stoop to less–

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloak your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your gods and you.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Have done with childish days–

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

 

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days, the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classically arrogant, Dead White Man. But, when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion, or untruth.

Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side, and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “Oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way, but more as in no one around me ever made any big deal about it; people were people, and that was about that.

As a result, I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting that say, the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern cultures?

Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad, and sometimes indifferent, or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better, so we can’t hold them to our high standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplications of all signs in Spanish, while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar, where there are a great many Asians, the signs are only in English?

Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually THAT clueless.

To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others.

On the other hand, if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself, it is also just another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.”

Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash.

We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American enclave, and ignores the culture and language of their hosts…

We call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and act that way IN the West. Then we call them oppressed.

Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but, non-Westerners are not required to do the same, when THEY travel to the West?

What other than racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both), would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines?

And on that note, what about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in California is Spanish this, and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil, and the other Portuguese countries?

The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish, and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America, not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans seem to became confused about the difference between skin color and culture. As an American though, I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they choose to show the world.

A Hispanic man, who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know that he could have been type-cast in a remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn, and those who grow up in suburban Southern California? Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Japan?

Culture matters. Culture is values, and traditions, and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says that a man raping his wife is no criminal.

Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West it is the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all, while oppressing none, is the best regardless of the details.

In the East it is one that protects the status quo, and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign; once all opposition is removed.

Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt, and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so, they will thrive and their children, and children’s children will be of the new country, not the old “race”.

So, what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid, and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s?

Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved.

Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways.

Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals, not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab), as much as for how they acted, and their moral, and ethic values, and what religion they belonged to.

And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend MANY people with THEIR actions and values.

As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized.

Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.

I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most people’s down is their own lack of commitment to those same ideals.

This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society, and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had significant results in improving the lot of all humanity.

To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements.

The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling.

Institutional prejudices that I grew up thinking only were seen in the movies and on TV were shoved in my face when I had been living there for less than a month. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best, and that I was just an interfering outsider.

I stood up for the values that made the West, and America, what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands.

To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people, instead of privilege for a few, with subservience for the rest, in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that is promised to be “worth” the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.

So, do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women.

Stand for the West, and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you, instead of FOR you.

Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune, or allow you to break commonsense laws protecting public health and safety simply because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.

The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization”, and that it is wrong and evil to even TRY to judge which might be the “better” culture.

But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights and government for the People we find in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience, and Constitutional government designed to limit the excesses of individuals are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people somehow afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world”, then the “values” of Iran, and North Korea, and such places can ONLY been seen as evil, and inimical to those who are unfortunate enough to grow up in them, or are subject to their power.

To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.

How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored, and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous peoples but, the entire indigenous culture of the West?

I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here; in every group there are Hardliners, and Compromisers, and Appeasers.

Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but, the Appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future, and to be seen as the “good guy”.

But, the Compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation, and THEN chooses to compromise or to stand firm. Unfortunately Hardliners and Appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics today, and the result is hardly more than a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

In the terror wars the appeasers seem concentrated in the West, and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side, when it comes to foreign policy.  But in domestic policy, the Appeasers of the West turn Hardliner towards their own people, and conspire toward the downfall of our culture as a means of “humbling” the “arrogant Colonial Powers”.

This is how we ended up with a “separation of church and state” that allowed the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university.

This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism, merely for responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion, that TO THEM, Mohammed was a warlord, and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women.

For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Ahadith could confirm, these people may lose their Bed & Breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs), because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that YOU follow THEIR customs at all times when they MIGHT be present, or AWARE of your activities.

When was the last time a Jew, or Christian, or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why do they not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West when in the West, not the tribalism of the East.

Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized, even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this Japan, and South Korea, and others like them are in “the West”), no matter how horrific, simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them.

That the non-Western countries that were colonized are all dramatically better off (at least, as far as the people in the street are concerned), with the influx of Western Law, and Western Science, and Western concepts of Human Rights is deemed irrelevant.

That they treat their own people, or foreigners with no power, in ways that make the WORST of the colonial excesses look tame, also means nothing.

If you say that the English were preferred employers to the local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely, and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence, you are called racist or Islamophobic.

Yet the fact remains, the English actually freed India from despotism, and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won.

So, why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India, and the Islamics, who conquered with blood half of that ancient land, seen as “victims”?

Things like this happen because the Appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken, or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike, have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.

So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese, it was anyone who was not Japanese, no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements.

To me, civilized cultures are those that allow their individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace, and a consistent and humane system of laws that apply to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other as humans, regardless of their “station” in life.

When these criteria are met a society can start building “civilizational equity” that grows over time.

Without them, a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuses of personal power.

When every functionary, officer, and elected official seeks to build their own power base without duty to the people, and the people are expected to obey without question any who have power over them, cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.

Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization.

The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture, and technology, and law, that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization.

We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented, or how the many Greek and Indian works the Islamics preserved (and modestly improved) makes them the equal of the West, but it does not change the truth.

The Chinese invented things but, then used the knowledge as a means to horde power. Their lack of sharing of information between scientists and innovators caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread. When the inventers and their people disappeared, so did the knowledge.

The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but, the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross.

Individual innovation inherent in the Chinese culture did not take up, and improve, and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a secret weapon, to be used only for the benefit of the owner.

And because of this, most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to naught over time.

But in the West, with a different way of looking at power, the rate of progress, sustained, accelerating progress, has been unparalleled anywhere in human history.

Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and Phoenicians, and developed by the Romans, Western European – council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror, and blended them with their own rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.

Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the Italian renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. With this evolution the value of ALL people came into its own, and then the tide jumped the ocean to America.

There all bets were off, as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society. Instead the West had recognized that all societies only exist to serve the people that make them real in the first place.

The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept.

To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights, or desires, or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation.

This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me.

But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him, anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong, no matter what the reason.

To him, if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be, and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it.

In contrast the West sees the WHOLE as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual, as well as the whole!

In the East, the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them.

This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them, and that The State has no right to put stability ahead of the law.

In the East, the only people who have the right to overthrow the government, are the people who belong to the winning faction in said revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason”.

To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first.

But, all this does is replace one set of thugs with another, then another, then another.

So now, let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the hated values of the West that keep non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability.

Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their greater orientation toward the West, and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens (at least in comparison with completely non-Western countries that take our technology and try to ignore the rest).

As a result, the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year, and it is next to impossible to build stable institutions.

India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law.

Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan, which retains its attachment to the tribal past.

When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim, and not in accord with agreed rules, the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption.

Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but, from a willingness to compromise ALL values on the altar of the local boss’s power, and his ability to pull the strings of influence.

In the West, we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people.

Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics.

Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression,, as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader.

But this fails the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people since to promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place.

In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force, and without mercy for dissent.

By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel, and the Arab states surrounding it.

How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West?

How can Israel give citizenship to Muslim Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”? And of course, non-Muslims are far from equal to Muslims there in rights and privileges.

Power, and how it is used and protected, is what it all boils down to.

In the West, governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us, and is to be used for the benefit of everyone.

In the East, this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation’s or tribe’s wellbeing.

However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.

So, why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands, even when those practices are illegal, and universally condemned for Westerners?

How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage, and genital mutilation, and honor killings to resurface in the West.

Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?

About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as REAL oppressors from the past.

In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not very “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West) they will not only excuse, but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those who are less civilized.

It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved.

But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their new land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam, who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt).

We in the West need to get over this over-developed sense of guilt, and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values.

We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions; Q.E. I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism, with them at the top of the pecking order.

Obama’s ”Solutions” Will Endanger Israel

All Julie Pateet and other political "anthropologists" love terrorists israel 67 73 48 borderSay No To A Palestinian State

Daniel Doron, 05.16.09, 03:00 PM EDT

Irving Kristol said that whomever the Gods want to teach humility they first tempt to resolve the Middle East conflict.

Solving this conflict has been so difficult because it has always been misconstrued. As a result of confusion about the conflict’s nature, the solutions that were nevertheless tried, such as the Oslo agreement establishing the Palestinian Authority, or Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, resulted in costly failures. The suffering of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs increased.

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.

This must be why the Obama administration seems to believe that pressuring Israel to immediately accept a Palestinian Arab state and to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries will bring about peace. Obama seems determined to take serious risks to pursue what he believes is a strategic imperative and a moral duty. Indeed, the two-state solution seems like the decent and rational solution to the conflict. But there are many serious doubts about its feasibility.

Advocates of the two-state solution consider themselves political realists. But they always stress the historical and judicial justification for establishing a Palestinian state. They see it as not only politically necessary but an absolute moral imperative, doing justice to a dispossessed people.

But should not the establishment of such a state–which the Europeans so strongly promote–adhere to the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?

Clearly a Palestinian Authority state will not even remotely meet such criteria. What moral justification is there, then, for forcing a vulnerable Israel, threatened by an irredentist Palestinian state, to help establish it when a powerful European Union refuses to take much smaller risks in the case of Turkey?

While Israel has impeded the evolution of Palestinian Arab society toward statehood, it is not the major culprit. Until Oslo, relatively free economic interaction between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs resulted in spectacular economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. This created an informal peace process that greatly improved Arab life and promoted a Palestinian civil society committed to peace.

But external economic setbacks compounded by increasing Israeli bureaucratic oppression reversed this prosperity. Increasing Arab frustration finally exploded in 1987 in a popular uprising that led to the 1993 Oslo accords. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist organization, was invited to set up a Palestinian Authority as a preparation for an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel.

But Arafat’s Authority was not interested in living in peace with Israel; it wanted to destroy it. Arafat gladly sacrificed Palestinian welfare, even lives, for this purpose. Ruining the Arab economy and using a totalitarian propaganda campaign to blame Israel for Palestinian misery, Arafat exploited Arab anger to escalate the conflict.

He succeeded because the conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is only superficially about nationhood and territory. Since the 1948 partition of Palestine, British Mandate Arabs had several opportunities to create an independent state. Jordan and Egypt ruled the area until 1967; recently, they could have done so after Oslo, after the Gaza withdrawal. But they did not, because they were intent on first destroying Israel.

As long as this is so, granting the Palestinian Arabs a state will not result in peace, but in continued war.

As for the historic and legal claims for a Palestinian Arab state, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” is sheer fabrication. The area of the former British mandate of Palestine (which included Jordan) was for centuries under the Ottomans an empty, deserted land.

Private rights never amounted to more than 4% of the land; 96% remains to this day mostly arid and government-owned. Palestine, as Mark Twain found it in 1860, was an empty “prince of desolation.” There was not even a Palestinian people–the few inhabitants considered themselves Syrian.

Palestine became a “promised land” again only after Jewish pioneers, in the second half of the nineteenth century, miraculously revived it, making it the most developed land in the region. It was then also that, as a result of their clash with Zionism, the Arabs started identifying themselves as Palestinians. So much for their “stolen” rights.

The claim that “illegal settlements” are an obstacle to peace is absurd too. Jewish settlements occupy less than 4% of the West Bank territory, mostly constructed on deserted government land. The reason the Arabs want them removed (but not Arab settlements in Israel) is that their radical leadership cannot tolerate any Jews living among them. All Arab lands were ethnically cleansed after 1948, forcing more than 1 million Jews to flee countries in which they had lived long before the Muslim occupation.

The Arabs’ struggle to retrieve “stolen Palestinian lands” is really an attempt to get rid of all Jews in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority maps of Palestine never mark an area as the state of Israel, and their leaders refuse to recognize the Jewish right for a national state.

International law too does not support Arab claims to a state in former Palestine. The last international adjudication of the rights to this territory took place in the post-World War I peace conference in San Remo, Italy. The victors generously granted the vast former Ottoman territories to newly formed Arab states (like Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq). Less than 1% of these vast territories were to be given in trust to the British to establish “a Jewish national home.”

The League of Nations decided that the Jews had a stronger legal claim to Palestine, their historic and national homeland. The Arabs, represented by Emir Faisal, agreed. They were happy to receive huge areas of land for such a small price. Fiasal welcomed the Jews back to their homeland. Only later British colonial machinations incited the Arabs to renege on this fantastic (for them) deal.

The conflict persists because the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, cannot forget their 1948 defeat by the Jews. It is a blot on their honor that only the destruction of Israel can wipe out.

But the greatest difficulty in the immediate establishment of a Palestinian Arab state is the unlikelihood that it can be established and maintained right now. It is not by accident that the Arabs missed several opportunities to establish such a state.

The creation of yet another dysfunctional Palestinian Arab state will not only mortally threaten Israel, its irredentist nature will inflame the region. As importantly, it will continue making the personal and communal life of Palestinian Arabs unbearable. Remember what happened in Gaza after Israel vacated it: the wanton destruction of the hot houses Israel left behind to enable the Gazans to make a better living from agriculture; the rule of oppression and mayhem Hamas has instituted in Gaza; the continued impoverishment and immiseration of their hapless citizens. Is this the kind of government America wants extended to the West Bank?

But this will inevitably happen as a result of the premature formation of a Palestinian state. Within a very short time, it will disintegrate and be taken over by the extremist Hamas movement.

As in Gaza, a Hamas West Bank government, an Iranian proxy, will quickly launch missile attacks against Israel. From the West Bank, however, the missiles will not hit a sparsely inhabited Negev but the densely populated heartland of Israel, the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. They will hit Israel’s only links to the world, Ben Gurion International Airport and the ports of Haifa and Ashdod.

Eventually Israel will be forced to go to war and re-occupy the West Bank. Such a campaign, as the recent Israeli Gaza operation demonstrated, will involve bloody fighting in densely populated areas, many casualties and great destruction. It won’t spare the civilian population. … This is surely not what the “realists” want, but can they honestly dismiss the probability that this may happen?

Chances that advocates of a Palestinian state will be convinced by such arguments are small. It is hard to dispel faith with facts. President Obama and his advisers seem convinced that they will succeed where others failed.

Israel may have to accede to Obama’s demands. But since there are great risks involved in the two-state solution, it would be fair for Obama to assure Israel that the U.S. will protect it from its serious consequences, should they unexpectedly materialize, as they have in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Daniel Doron is president of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progess.

READ IT ALL!!!

New film ‘Lemon Tree’ offers fresh look at Mideast conflict

By Reuters

Boiling the complexities of the Middle East down into a 106-minute film about a Palestinian woman’s lemon trees and tensions arising when Israel’s defense minister moves next door risk over-simplifying the issues.

But Israeli director Eran Riklis has delivered a stirring fictional story, “Lemon Tree,” that is in many ways a microcosm of the struggles between Israelis and Palestinians – a dispute about land, security, fears and displacement.

“It’s a film about people who are trapped in a political situation,” said Riklis after the contemporary film, based loosely on true stories with a cast of Israeli and Palestinians, made its world premiere at the Berlin Film Festival on Friday. “It’s a film for all audiences.”

A Palestinian woman has long been peacefully tending the lemon tree grove she inherited from her father on the Green Line that separates Israel and the occupied West Bank.

But she faces eviction and the removal of the trees so lovingly cared for over many decades when the Israeli defense minister moves in next door – and the lemon tree grove is deemed to be a security threat.

She challenges the security order in court, taking her fight all the way to the High Court of Justice.

The defense minister’s fears that an attack against him could come from the grove might seem absurd, but the film portrays in a balanced fashion the ever-present threat. Yet his wife views the security measures as exaggerated.

Riklis said he had read recent accounts of Palestinians going to court against Israel, which he found intriguing. He said he thought that was a tribute to the Israeli justice system and developed the “Lemon Tree”, which he also wrote, around it.

“It does not try to impose any view on you,” he said. “It’s about people trapped in a deadlock. It tells a story, shows you emotions and glides through a complex, delicate situation in an explosive setting.”

Riklis said “The Syrian Bride” was a success in Israel and elsewhere, and he is optimistic “Lemon Tree” will have an even better box office performance.

“To use an American term, it’s a ‘feel-good movie’,” he said. “Maybe it’s not a happy ending. But anyone walking out afterwards will have a smile and sense of learning something. This film will have a wide release whereever it goes.”