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!

Comment on YouTube Video of David Horowitz’s BBC Israel Diatribe

250px-Herrmeetshare_restored

I got this comment last month on my YouTube Channel for a video of David Horowitz n England:

hicham437

I think the full picture is that we should end occupation. Them being bad doesn’t give you the right to steal their land, kill their children, and rape their daughters and wives. Educate yourself focus and listen to some Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Robert Fisk and others.

Together

Here is my reply:

@hicham437 Noam Chomsky? Washington and Jefferson would have held him down while Franklin shoved the Declaration and Constitution down his throat!  He makes the word “Liberal” into a curse instead a badge of honor.

He is a classic Marxist fellatiating “progressive” who thinks people like Mao, Ho, Pol Pot and Stalin were “O.K. dudes”!
That said, if you would understand the modern situation in Israel and it’s neighbors study the history going back all the way to the mid 1800’s.

This is when most of the ancestors of both Arabs and Jews started flocking to the area; this influx of Arabs and Jews continued until the early 30’s, with many Arabs coming to work in British and Jewish initiated jobs; jobs that did not exist where the Arab immigrants, mostly Syrians and Jordanians (new countries Hand-Delivered Compleat including new & improved infrastructures to the local Arabs by the British and French, those “Colonializing Bastards”, after centuries of callous foreign domination by the Turks) were from.

When looking at the actual history, as opposed to the rampantly political rhetoric from the extremes of both sides, you will find that the “Palestinian people” does not, and never did, exist as either a cultural or ethnic division from Arabs of “Greater Syria.”
Indeed, the concept of a Palestinian people that did not include Jews was created in the early 60’s as an open and blatantly political tool to “win” in the battle to remove Israel. Prior to that any and all accounts of “Palestine and “Palestinians” in general referred to ALL inhabitants of the area, including, and and especially, the Jewish elements that had been the majority population of Jerusalem for some time. The “Palestinian mandate” referred to Jews, not Arabs, they having been given the vast majority of the entire region when the Turkish Empire folded up after they sided with Germany in WWI.  Government was gone in those regions, Saudi Arabia was Arab ruled solely because of British intervention on their side against the Turks; and the British and French stepped n and established modern infrastructures of government and social services then let themselves be kicked/invited out of control before the locals had grown beyond their tribal-based endemic corruption and nepotism.

At that point both the Arab nationalist movement and the Jewish nationalist movement gained steam and a foothold; until the office of Mufti of Jerusalem fell into the hands of a rabid anti-Semite this was more a joint venture than a competitive one!!! This man was a buddy of Hitler, and had his own Muslim S.S. division!

He may, emphasize may, have been the originator and motivator of the entire “kill them all, and we won’t HAVE a problem” quote unquote ‘solution’ dear Adolph and others so hideously embraced. He was poised to apply it in his own backyard when things went sour for the Axis and he had to go on the run; mainstream history, if you bother to look it up!

As to “occupation”, follow the history and you find that never in hundreds of years, and then only briefly, has sovereignty been exercised in the region by locals, Arab or Jewish; even when it was Arab it was foreign Arabs, not local tribes.  There cannot be a legal “occupation” if there was never a settlement of the disputed territories; which is what Gaza and the West Bank LEGALLY are by any and all BINDING international declarations, agreements or UN Security Council commandments; deal with it, or stop talking about international “law” and how Israel is breaking it.

Can You Say Provocation in Arabic?

eat7

Once again al-Jazeera shows its skill at spinning reality until reality itself gets sick and throws up its lunch…

Here Virginia, we have a video from Occupied East” Jerusalem; I want to see the rest of this video!!! I want to see what happened just before the cut! Notice the non-children with cameras all ready to shoot the results.  Notice the kids running INTO the front of the car, practically attacking the hood as the group throws stones…

This was a prepared and staged event! Those children are the victims of their parents and the Palestinian “leadership” who planned and staged it!  I want to see the whole tape! I want to hear the audio.  And the the car that hits the boys just HAPPENS to be the leader of the settler group?

I just noticed another thing about the vid… there is not one exclamation of shock or surprise or outrage..almost as if the incident was expected!  If this tape is not of a staged incident I am sure the rest will be released, right… hello? Is there anyone there?

Hillary Clinton in the Middle East


Mar 5th 2009 | CAIRO AND JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition

AS THE emissary of a new president ostensibly still in “listening mode”, Hillary Clinton was politesse personified during her first swing as secretary of state through the Middle East this week. Inevitably, however, the locals also listened attentively to their visitor, hoping for clues about the direction of American policy under Barack Obama not only towards Israel and the Palestinians but also towards Syria and Iran. In the event, she gave hints of both change and continuity—reassuring, disappointing or worrying, depending on the point of view of her various audiences.

For Israelis and Palestinians, the message was more continuity than change. Mrs Clinton wants to help Gaza recover from the battering it received during the recent war between Israel and Hamas. She attended an international meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which promised some $4.5 billion in aid. But, for now, she seems determined to deal only with Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and not with Hamas, even though, despite Israel’s recent onslaught, the Islamists still control Gaza. If Hamas wants to talk, America continues to say, it must recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept previous deals signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation—the conditions set down not only by America but also by the UN.

Worse from the point of view of Mr Netanyahu may be the new administration’s firm intention to reach out to Syria and Iran, two countries consigned by George Bush to an “axis of evil” but now targets for diplomatic “engagement” if they are willing to unclench their fists. The American State Department announced during Mrs Clinton’s tour that she was sending the most senior American delegation for several years to Syria. This portends trouble in American-Israeli relations. Although many Israelis, including much of the defence establishment, support the idea of peace with Syria, Mr Netanyahu has set his face against paying the inevitable price, namely the return of the Golan Heights, captured in the 1967 war.

America’s approach to Iran so far is warier. Mrs Clinton joined a chorus of local leaders warning Iran to stay out of Arab affairs. Mr Obama, it transpired this week, has written to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, noting that any reduction in the nuclear threat from Iran would reduce the need for America to deploy a missile-defence system that Russia loathes in eastern Europe. This appears to be an attempt to entice Russia into accepting tougher economic sanctions on Iran—part of the stick Mr Obama intends to brandish if the Iranians fail to grasp his dangled carrot of talks. Israel grumbles that if Iran talks to America at all it will do so just to play for time while perfecting its plans for nuclear weapons.

Mrs Clinton was careful to keep out of Israel’s internal politics. She pledged to work closely with whatever government emerged at the end of Mr Netanyahu’s still fraught coalition-building. But she did reiterate strongly America’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, an idea that Mr Netanyahu stolidly refuses to endorse, even though his obstinacy may prevent him from building the broad-based coalition he seeks.

Having encountered a second rebuff from Tzipi Livni in his efforts to form a broad government including her centrist Kadima party, Mr Netanyahu is now wooing Ehud Barak, the Labour leader, who does not conceal his desire to stay on at the defence ministry. But many in Kadima and Labour want nothing to do with Mr Netanyahu unless he accepts the need for a Palestinian state, not just the “economic peace” that he is offering. Mrs Clinton said nothing on her tour to undermine the idea that Israel remains a special friend. But on Gaza, settlements and engagement with Syria and Iran, a pricklier American relationship may now lie ahead.

Yes, Heretics Crusade criticizes Israel too.

(HH here: the opposition “peace” movement has hyped this up for all it is worth. Well they might, it is one of the few legitimate grievances they have! Note to Israel THIS DOES NOT HELP!!!!)

Israel Plans to Double Size of Settlements in Palestinian Territory
By SANA ABDALLAH (Middle East Times, with agency dispatches)Published: March 02, 2009
AMMAN — One day before Hillary Clinton begins her maiden visit to Israel and the West Bank as the U.S. secretary of state, an Israeli peace group announced more settlement expansion plans on Palestinian territories, posing an even tougher challenge to the new American administration’s peace endeavors.

In a report released on Monday, Peace Now said the Israeli authorities have plans for 73,302 new housing units in Jewish settlements, which would double the number of settlers in the occupied territory and blow the chances for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Many Middle East experts agree with Peace Now in warning that the expansion of the settlements and the demographic growth of Israelis in the occupied territories – where the future Palestinian state is aspired to be established – destroy any chance for a viable peace solution that entails two states.

“The government has the power to decide not to carry out plans, or even to halt construction that has begun,” Peace Now said in its report.

However, the next government that Israeli prime minister-designate, right-wing Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, is trying to form is expected to follow through with the expansion plans.

… it is a big deal for the Palestinians and international mediators trying to revive a peace process that has been generally paralyzed because of settlement expansion, which is dangerously changing realities on the ground.

Plus, this expansion violates the U.S.-backed international peace road map, which called for a halt to all settlement activity, including “natural growth,” and dismantling those built since 2001. But settlement construction jumped 60 percent in 2008 after Palestinian-Israeli peace talks were relaunched at Annapolis in November, and settler population growth in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has increased by 400 percent in 10 years.

(HH here: about the only good thing you can say about this tactic is that it is not killing anyone. Other than that it is low-down and dirty pool.)

Since Israel insists on keeping settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as in-roads leading to the settlements, under any peace agreement, the Palestinians will be effectively left without contiguous lands on which to establish a state.

Palestinians, who see settlement expansion as consolidating the occupation, complain that the international community has done little, if anything, to challenge Israel’s illegal activities in the last eight years, and hope that the U.S. Barack Obama administration will deal with the issue more vigorously than its predecessor under George W. Bush.

The Obama administration has vowed to quickly engage in Middle East peace and named a special envoy who in 2001 had sharply criticized Israeli settlement activities. Since his appointment, former Senator George Mitchell has made two trips to the region, but it remains to be seen whether the new administration will actually challenge Israel over its settlement expansion policies.

(HH: like I said, that is about the only issue where Israel DOES need to change it’s policies.)

Palestinian officials told the Middle East Times that if the Obama administration is serious about a two-state solution, it must start looking at settlement activities not only as an obstacle to peace, but to declaring them illegal – which they already are under international laws.

Arab commentators say if Israeli settlement expansion continues to be allowed in this manner, the Israelis might find themselves faced without the two-state option, which they claim as the only solution. The only choice left would be a democratic one-state solution, which most Israelis do not want. And maintaining the occupation is not even on the table if the goal is peace.