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!

Obama Falls for Latest Palestine Peace; Con – A Musical Tribute to Hamas & 67 Israel Border

Israel suicidal to accept 1967 border (67 border) or 1948 border (48  border) or 1973  border (73 border)
After Obama’s amazingly naive speech on peace in the Middle East I just have to repost this wonderful satire by Latma, Caroline Glick‘s Hebrew language humor site.
You have to give Hamas some credit for chutzpah, they really do manage to “Con the World”…
Pre 67 border Safe for Israel? Now, THAT is a Con!
israel 1948 border, 1967 border and 1973 border obama is as genocidal as hamas

map of israel 1948 border, 1967 border and 1973 border

A View From The Ivory Tower

sillyspeakers

Well, today has been a VERY interesting day, from nonsensical pronouncements on “Palestine” to curiously timed assaults on my “rudeness” by a very rude professor, it has been a learning experience to say the least.

Today, at Scripps College in lovely and beloved Claremont, Ca I attended a panel (not what you could call a discussion, more a multi-lecture) on , well, I will let the Scripps Website tell it:

“Scripps College will host a panel discussion on Friday, February 12, 2010 from 12:00-2:00 p.m. with four distinguished experts on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. The event, “Report Card: Evaluating the Obama Administration’s First Year of Middle East Policy,” will take place in the Hampton Room, Malott Commons, on the Scripps College campus and is free and open to the public.

This distinguished Middle East panel — including the Editor and Editorial Committee members of the prominent journal Middle East Report — will explore diverse Middle East issues, including the War in Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo, the challenges of life in Palestine, and piracy on the Red Sea.

Speakers include:

  • Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Law and Society, UC Santa Barbara and author of Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza
  • Julie Peteet, Chair and Professor of Anthropology, University of Louisville and author of Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement and Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps”

Two others had been scheduled to speak but were snowed in on the East Coast (You know, Global Warming).

Fair and balanced was probably not the best way to describe Ms. Peteet’s presentation.  To be polite, she seemed to me to display all the classic symptoms of a strong case of WhatInconvenientFacts Syndrome.

From an inability to see Israeli concerns about security as anything but “rhetoric” to expressing amazement at Israeli soldiers getting into ambulances to confirm that the occupants are really injured (Hamas has been filmed during the latest Israeli response using ambulances donated by charities as personnel carriers for armed men) Ms. Peteet sees the world the way Ms. Peteet wants to see it.

I asked her during the Q&A why everything she spoke of put all responsibility on Israel to have open borders with a “state”, actually I believe I said “people”, that has openly and consistently for years declared it’s intent to see Israel no more – especially when Israel is hardly the only country bordering either Gaza or the West Bank.

Rather than actually answer this question, Ms. Peteet actually declared that in the 60’s the Arabs were not responsible when ISRAEL redrew the map.  Then, she went on to say that it is “international law” that the “host” state’s ( i.e. the state the “refugees” originated in) responsibility to handle said refugees.

Are you following her logic Virginia?  Half the Arab world’s armies were on the march toward Israel’s borders,  and Egypt had already closed the straits of Tiran to Israel ( already a casus belli) then expelled the UN Peacekeeper force at the border, but it is ISRAEL’s fault for being the first to fire a shot.

It should also be noted I had asked about borders and trade, not about resettlement of refugees!

As a follow-up I asked if it was the case that host countries were responsible for their own refugees would she agree that the Arab states were responsible for giving a right of return to all expelled Jews from 1948 and their descendants.

This champion of the downtrodden coldly informed me that no Jews had been expelled from anywhere in 1947 or 48, period. So, I asked if that meant that the Arabs who left Israel without force were also “not refugees”. Her answer was less than detailed;  “This conversation is OVER.”

I asked the above questions at the very end of the event after it had started to break up. I had not been called on after my first question despite little competition from the audience.

Once I had asked that first question a professor hopped up from his seat, (no, he was NOT one of the actual event organizers) and intimidated my assistant out of her seat to plop down next to me and (while the lectures were still going on and making it impossible for ME to hear what was being said) berate me for being so rude as to not have gone up, in the one minute after I arrived before the event started, introduce myself AND IDENTIFY WHO I WROTE FOR and THEN ask for permission to record.

Now I had been recording voice openly  and my asst. was shooting photos. She even accidently let loose one flash shot! So I am sure that the entire panel and the moderator were aware of what I was doing, yet had said and done nothing about it!

This professor had taken it upon himself to harass me ONLY after I had asked a question that showed me to be less than a member of the choir on the Israel question.

Just like a redneck telling the city black that the “Standards of the Community” required certain extra-legal rules to be followed this defender of academic freedom expected me to conform to unstated, biased and unenforced rules lest I be declared “terribly rude and even “disruptive.”

I replied that his harassing me and not letting the speaker be heard was far ruder.  Then he began to berate me for the tiny sound my blackberry keys made as I took notes.  This sound would have been totally inaudible to him if he had not displaced my assistant from her seat to lean into me and lecture in my ear.

He then glanced at my notes, didn’t like what he saw and declared it also against “Common courtesy” to text message during the event.  I informed him in a less than patient tone that if he had bothered to READ the top of the page he would have noticed that it said Word to Go – Untitled.doc in larger print than the notes that had offended him.

All in all it was an adventure exploring the limits of human silliness in defense of the indefensible.

Oh, I should add that in two hours of talk about “Palestine”, and Israel, and the terrible plight of “Palestinians”, and how they were being used and controlled to their detriment, two words were NEVER MENTIONED BY ANYONE, but me, in my first question.

What were the words that these eminent scholars felt had NOTHING to do with the problems of “Palestine and “Palestinians”?

Fatah and Hamas, of course.

Oh, again, the ONLY thing in the whole event that was about Obama at all was a tiny bit at the end, dissing him for keeping only a few of his campaign promises and otherwise following in George Bush’s footsteps.  There was FAR more talk about the “sins of Bush and Cheney” than about anything Obama had done, good or bad.

A good time was had by all…at least once Ms. Peteet got away from my uncomfortable questions.

End the Arab Occupation of Israel

Guy DeWhitney of Heretics Crusade says Take Your Jihad... and Shove It!

Not a lot of comments about this one. I completely agree.
I am very worried about Israel lately. When I was growing up Israel was the accepted proof that the whole Western Civilization thing could work ANYWHERE that the people truly believed in it. Israel has my whole life been the good hearted David who triumphs again and again over the hateful Goliath. (yes, I know that a couple Jews go ballistic every few decades, so? Is that a significant comment about ISRAEL in relation to the daily assaults by many Muslims with the full support of their political leaders? In the real world?
NO. But the winds in the West are changing and the so called “Liberals” now are ruled by those who are more truly called Leftists. The West is coming more and more under the sway of minds that can only see opposition as a thing to be suppressed instead of a challenge from which we can grow.
When the Big Lies of the Arab nations that first fought for Hitler then against Israel are being accepted and spread all across the West by Leftists masking as Liberals how long will it be before even Israeli spirit and innovation cannot prevail against the alliance of the hateful with the apathetic?
This morning I was cleaning the kitchen, and listening to Jesus Christ Superstar by AndrewLloyd Webber; a  wonderful skeptic’s commentary on the traditional view of Jesus. The song at the time was about Jesus supposedly foreseeing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

At the end comes this lyric:

If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem, You’d see the truth, but you close your eyes.

But, you close your eyes.

While you live, your troubles are many, poor Jerusalem.

To conquer death, you only have to die.

You only have to die.

At that moment, as I sang those words I began to cry. I am not Jewish. I was raised Christian (Presbyterian) but am a passionate God believing Agnostic and am just as passionately certain that ANY organized religion that feels it can put God in a box to force its followers to accept or be damned is wrong. But I also understand and accept the positive reasons we seek God, to be distinguished from the ways we use religion as a social club to sooth personal insecurities and fear of death.
As a student of history without an agenda I admire the Jews as a culture for almost the last two thousand years. When dispersed and severed from the domination of the scribes and priests (A trend that had actually been a reversal of the ancient Judaic Synagogue model.) and the rabbinical model of Hillel, and his school of Pharisees became dominant the Jewish faith truly was able to mature.
In the times of the Romans, right up until the destruction of the Temple, the Jews habitually behaved much the same as the youngest member of the Judeo-Christian family behaves; easy to offend and extremely into Tit for Tat against any real or imagined “provocation”. Put alongside them the Greeks who at that time had little true devout” passion for even their own Gods and you have a recipe for trouble.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if you could put a few thousand Devout Muslims from rural Pakistan 2009 into the New York of 1926 as residents.
Picture the New Yorkers having a ball making fun of the silly Muslims and their rites and see the Silly Muslims taking their God and Prophet’s honor back in blood every time. That is about what things looked like in the days when both the Temple and the Romans lived lived in Jerusalem.
But then the Romans had their fill of the Jewish leadership inciting violence against any perceived insult to their Law as well as with the Greeks acting out THEIR hatred toward the Jews whether they had reason or not.
When left to themselves in their own lands they did not cause trouble without provocation and had been slowly reforming their more barbaric customs to a point where in many ways beyond the Romans in ethical reasoning. but anywhere the Greek and Jewish cultures touched, regardless of who had been there first, trouble came from both sides being unable to accept the other cultures idea of social/religious limits and duties.
Once the Romans inflicted the Diaspora however an unforeseen side effect appeared. The rabbinical paradigm, the philosophy of those who shared the view of Hillel that the ultimate expression of both God and Man is Love, took over the Jewish heart for good. The Jews went from being a classic People of the Temple following an un-forgiving “Truth” to a “People of the Book” who sought understanding instead of dominance, reconciliation rather than victory.
Even before the destruction of the Temple the Jews were famous for their scholarship, their dedication to their concept of Justice and for their constant desire to walk with God.
Afterward these traits, all of which are suppressed under a powerful priesthood, were free to blossom.
A close study of Western History will show the result. Everywhere the Jews went economic, social and scientific progress were soon to follow. Indeed there are many more examples than Nazi Germany where nations lost advantage after suppressing or expelling the Jews.
This is not, I think, due to any attachment by God to the Jewish people but to the nature of the Jewish culture itself. If you doubt my words take a map of the world and put an overlay on it that shows where Jews live shaded for population density.
Jews have been accused of fomenting this revolution or that scandal. But they also stand “accused” of more humanitarian acts than you can shake a Liberal-Fundraiser at. So what is it? To me it is very obvious. Jews are…..HUMAN. Yep they have the same strengths and weaknesses that the rest of us have. What they HAVE that is their own is their dedication to be VITAL. To seek understanding of SOMETHING and to better themselves, at least in their own eyes. The result of this is that in ANY creative, intellectual enterprise good, bad or indifferent you are likely to find Jewish people in numbers beyond their percentage in the population. It also helps that it is an essential Jewish virtue to be able to accept with gratitude all criticism. I think that is most likely from where the wonderful self-deprecating Jewish humor comes.
The Jewish Religion, other than in its most conservative (and least popular) forms, is the most “Liberal” of the big five in its relations with other faiths. Now we look at the history of Israel, a nation built by the Rabbinical Jew. An Israel built by those who mourn their Temple and hold its site Holy but who, almost to aperson, do not want to see the Priesthood revived.
This nation that was founded despite treachery and bad faith has prospered and paid the entire world back many times with inventions, inspiration and creative minds seeking to better all of humanity for their little patch of barren desert. Can any nation founded in modern times show as much to its credit on the world stage astiny Israel? Only the U.S. has given the world more in ideas and technology. But if the balance is considered by population then this Californian Patriot will have to salute the Israelis as having surpassed our own ideals.

Anyway, enough of me explaining why I support Israel and am heartsick at the thought of the U.S. freely ALLOWING the next thing to a spiritual child die at the hands of rabid dogs. Here is an excellent article by someone who both gets it and is not afraid to talk about it.

End the Arab Occupation of Israel
By Ron Breiman
From Gideon Levy to Barack Obama, from Yariv Oppenheimer to Ismail Haniyeh, from Zahava Gal-On to Tzipi Livni – they all recite the same phrase: It’s time to put an end to the “occupation.” Once the “occupation” ends, peace will be sealed. Once the Jews are expelled from the heart of their country, redemption will come to Zion. From here emerges “the solution” – two states within the tiny piece of prized property that remains, the western Land of Israel, not the Greater Land of Israel.
We would do well to recall that the PLO – the (all of!) Palestine Liberation Organization -was founded in 1964 before there was an “occupation,” “the West Bank,” “territories,” and the other political terms that were designed to disinherit the Jewish people from the heart of their country, those swaths of land that were occupied – without quotation marks – by the Jordanian army in 1948, an occupation that lasted just 19 years. The PLO’s goal was not to liberate the territories from Jordan, because those lands were in Arab hands. Rather, it aimed to liberate the “occupied” territories from the State of Israel, which lay within “the Green Line.”
We would do well to recall that the PLO never changed its spots. It failed to do so when it signed for “peace” with the naive Yitzhak Rabin, who was lured into the trap sprung for him by the Osloites. And it failed to do so when it
allegedly abrogated its charter. Even the recent Fatah conference and the statements by the “moderate” Holocaust denier, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, can attest to this. The goal was and remains to this day: the Liberation of the “occupied” territories from Israel, namely the State of Israel within the confines of the Green Line.
On the other hand, when the Osloites let Yasser Arafat and his gang of henchmen come into the heart of the country with his army of terrorists, they brought with them their own army of occupation. As things went, thanks to the shock after the Rabin assassination, the Osloites quickly handed the cities of Judea and Samaria over to the occupier, an error that the slain prime minister apparently did not intend to commit. This is how liberated territories became occupied territories, without quotation marks. In Operation Defensive Shield, the Israel Defense Forces were compelled to pay a steep price in blood to liberate the heart of the country from Arab occupation.
Most of the Arabs in the Land of Israel immigrated here after our waves of aliyah. In other words, Zionism and the prosperity it engendered spawned “the Palestinian people.” Since the Arab occupation of the Land of Israel in the seventh century, and throughout the centuries of Muslim occupation, not one of the occupiers viewed this land as anything more than a distant imperial outpost.
The demand to grant a state to Arab immigrants to this country and their army, which is stationed here thanks to the blindness of certain Jews and the nations of the world, is without foundation. It is tantamount to legitimizing a reality that was created here after the criminal act that allowed an occupying army to enter this country.
The critics’ responses are predictable: What do you propose, that the Arabs just evaporate into thin air? In  contrast with the critics who espouse a racist transfer of Jews from Judea and Samaria, I reject any forcible transfer of any population group.
Perhaps there is no solution to the problem. There is certainly no solution at this point. But, this is no reason to commit suicide or sacrifice the Zionist vision on the altar of “peace.”
I do not want a bi-national state. If there is a solution, it cannot be found within the confines of just the western Land of Israel. In the long term, the solution will be a regional one that combines democracy, demography and geography. The Arabs of the Land of Israel will continue to live in their present homes and will hold Jordanian and Egyptian (for Gazans) citizenship, voting for their respective parliaments. In the long term, citizens of Jordan who comprise an overwhelming majority in eastern Transjordan will gain power in Amman. It is there that a solution will be found for their brothers who live west of the Jordan River.
But in the meantime, we must end the occupation. The Arab occupation in the Land of
Israel.

The writer was
the chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel from 2001 to 2005

Remembering the Hebron Massacre

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Here is a tribute to the Hebron Massacre in Israel.


Yet another wrenching exile and return, now rarely remembered, occurred 80 years ago this week. On Aug. 23-24, 1929, the Jewish community of Hebron was exiled following a horrific pogrom. The tragedy is known as Tarpat, an acronym for its date in the Hebrew calendar.

Until 1929, Jews had lived in Hebron for three millennia. There, according to Jewish tradition, Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah to bury Sarah. It was the first parcel of land owned by the Jewish people in their promised land. Ever since, religious Jews revered Hebron as the burial site of their matriarchs and patriarchs. Conquered, massacred and expelled over the centuries, Jews always returned to this sacred place.

In August 1929, that community was suddenly and brutally attacked. Incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem—who claimed that Jews were endangering Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem—Arab rioters swept through Palestine. In Hebron, the carnage was horrendous.

It began on Friday afternoon when Arabs attacked Jews with clubs and murdered a yeshiva student. The next morning, joined by local villagers, Arabs swarmed through Hebron screaming “Kill the Jews.” They broke into the home of Eliezer Dan Slonim, where many Jews had gathered for safety. There they wielded knives and axes to murder 22 innocents. In the Anglo-Palestine Bank, where 23 corpses were discovered, blood covered the tile floor. That day, three children under the age of five were murdered. Teenage girls, their mothers and grandmothers were raped and killed. Rabbis and their students were castrated before they were slain. A surviving yeshiva student recounted that he “had seen greater horrors than Dante in hell.”

When the slaughter finally subsided, 67 Jews had been murdered. Three days later, British soldiers evacuated 484 survivors, including 153 children, to Jerusalem. The butchery in Hebron, Zionist and religious officials alleged, was “without equal in the history of the country since the destruction of the Temple.” Sir Walter Shaw, chairman of an exhaustive British royal investigation, concluded that “unspeakable atrocities” had occurred.

Tarpat extinguished the most ancient Jewish community in Palestine. With synagogues destroyed, Jewish property converted into storerooms and barns for livestock, and the ancient cemetery desecrated, few signs remained that there had ever been a Jewish presence in Hebron.

But nearly 40 years later, after the Six-Day War of 1967, a small group of religious Zionists returned to Hebron to rebuild the destroyed community. “What was in the past in Hebron,” declared their matriarch Miriam Levinger, “is what will happen in the future. Always!” So it would be.

The Jewish community of Hebron—some 700 people—recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of their return. This month they commemorate the 80th anniversary of Tarpat. All the other ancient peoples mentioned in the Bible have vanished. But Jews, a community of memory, still live in Hebron.

Hebron Jews are relentlessly vilified as fanatics who illegally occupy someone else’s land. As religious Zionists, they are the militant Jewish settlers whom legions of Jewish and non-Jewish critics love to hate. It is seldom noticed that their most serious transgression—settlement in the biblical land of Israel—is the definition of Zionism: the return of Jews to their historic homeland.

Mr. Auerbach, a professor of history at Wellesley College, is the author of “Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel,” published in July by Roman & Littlefield.

Palestinian prof: No Jewish ties to Western Wall


Latest Islamic figure to deny documented archeological history

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem or the Western Wall, declared a Palestinian Authority lecturer on official PA television.

“[The Jews have] no historical roots. This is political terminology to win the hearts and the support of the Zionists in Europe, so they would emigrate and come to Palestine. Nothing more!” stated Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al-Quds Open University.

“The [Jews’] goal in giving the name ‘Wailing Wall’ to this [Western] Wall is political,” continued Alawneh, speaking on a PA television program called “Jerusalem – History and Culture.”

“The Jewish Zionists had no choice but to invent an excuse [about Jerusalem] to spread among the Zionists or the Jews in Europe, to connect to something concrete from the past about Jerusalem. They made false claims and called the ‘Al-Burak Wall’ the ‘Wailing Wall,” Alawneh said.

His remarks were translated from Arabic by Palestinian Media Watch.

Alawneh was the latest PA-connected official to deny the Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem and the Western Wall, which are intimately tied to Judaism. Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century.

Mainstream Palestinian leaders claim the Temple Mount and Western Wall are Muslim in spite of overwhelming archaeological evidence documenting the First and Second Jewish Temples.

Last June, WND quoted the chief of staff (link:) of PA President Mahmoud Abbas claiming Jerusalem and the Temple Mount belong to the Muslims. He warned any Israeli action that “offends” the Mount will be answered by 1.5 billion Muslims.

“Jerusalem is Muslim. The blessed Al Aqsa mosque and Harem Al Sharif (Temple Mount) is 100 percent Muslim. The Israelis are playing with fire when they threaten Al Aqsa with digging that is taking place,” said Abbas’ chief of staff Rafiq Al Husseini.

In a WND exclusive interview in March 2007, Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel, argued the Jewish Temples never existed, the Western Wall really was a tying post for Muhammad’s horse, the Al Aqsa Mosque was built by angels, and Abraham, Moses and Jesus were prophets for Islam.

Tamimi is considered the second most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

“Israel started since 1967 making archeological digs to show Jewish signs to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city, and they found nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in the 1880s,” said Tamimi.

“About these so-called two temples, they never existed, certainly not at the [Temple Mount],” Tamimi said during a sit-down interview in his eastern Jerusalem office.

The Palestinian cleric denied the validity of dozens of digs verified by experts worldwide revealing Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temples throughout Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount itself; excavations revealing Jewish homes and a synagogue in a site in Jerusalem called the City of David; or even the recent discovery of a Second Temple Jewish city in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Tamimi said descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged, and that the Torah was falsified to claim biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were Jewish when they were prophets for Islam.

“All this is not real. We don’t believe in all your versions. Your Torah was falsified. The text as given to the Muslim prophet Moses never mentions Jerusalem. Maybe Jerusalem was mentioned in the rest of the Torah, which was falsified by the Jews,” said Tamimi.

He said Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus were “prophets for the Israelites sent by Allah as to usher in Islam.”

Asked about the Western Wall, Tamimi said the structure was a tying post for Muhammad’s horse and that it is part of the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the Wall predates the mosque by more than 1,000 years.

“The Western Wall is the western wall of the Al Aqsa Mosque. It’s where Prophet Muhammad tied his animal which took him from Mecca to Jerusalem to receive the revelations of Allah.”

The Kotel, or Western Wall, is an outer retaining wall of the Temple Mount that survived the destruction of the Second Temple and still stands today in Jerusalem.

Tamimi went on to claim to WND the Al Aqsa Mosque , which has sprung multiple leaks and has had to be repainted several times, was built by angels.

“Al Aqsa was built by the angels 40 years after the building of Al-Haram in Mecca. This we have no doubt is true,” he said.

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Temple was the center of religious worship for ancient Israelites. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God’s presence dwelt. All biblical holidays centered on worship at the Temple. The Temples served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and were the main gathering place for Israelites.

According to the Talmud, the world was created from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It’s believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God’s test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition.

The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about A.D. 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 656 times.

Islamic tradition states Muhammad took a journey in a single night on a horse from “a sacred mosque” – believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia – to “the farthest mosque” and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque became associated with Jerusalem about 120 years ago.

According to research by Israeli Author Shmuel Berkovits, Islam historically disregarded Jerusalem. Berkovits points out in his new book, “How dreadful is this place!” that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for. He wrote Muhammad made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship and sanctifying only one place – the Kaaba in Mecca – to signify the unity of God.

As late as the 14th century, Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings influenced the Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites are to be found only in the Arabian Peninsula and that “in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron.”

It wasn’t until the late 19th century – incidentally when Jews started immigrating to Palestine – that some Muslim scholars began claiming Muhammad tied his horse to the Western Wall and associated Muhammad’s purported night journey with the Temple Mount

A guide to the Temple Mount by the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem published in 1925 listed the Mount as Jewish and as the site of Solomon’s Temple. The Temple Institute acquired a copy of the official 1925 “Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif,” which states on page 4, “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which ‘David built there an altar unto the Lord.'”

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!!!

Islamic States: Religious Freedom Report Does Not Sufficiently Attack Israel

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Ah yes, Islam, the Fred Phelps of World Religions!

UN Watch – March 12, 2009
During a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council today, Islamic countries complained that a report on religious freedom did not adequately attack Israel, while daring to criticize Islamic countries. The report was presented by U.N. expert on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir of Pakistan.

Palestine was the first to protest the report’s lack of focus on Israel. Referring to Israel as “the occupier,” Palestine exclaimed, “We reject the policy of promoting religious hatred, and we call on Israel to review its policies.” Denying that school books issued by the Palestinian Authority preach hatred, it pointed the finger at the purported bigotry of Israeli school curricula.

Yemen, speaking for the Arab Group, asked why the report did not address “the restrictions on freedom of movement and access to places of worship” for the Palestinian people. It accused Ms. Jahangir of “obvious bias” and “espousing of the Israeli viewpoint in this report.”

Iran and Algeria also spoke vociferously about purported Israeli assaults on Arab Muslim and Christian holy places, including during the recent attack on Gaza. Iran condemned “Israeli discriminatory practices and incitement to hatred.”

Egypt complained that Ms. Jahangir was not responding in a satisfactory manner to these complaints. It aggressively accused her of coming to the session with pre-written speeches that do not address the concerns raised regarding Israel, telling her that if this is the case, it is a waste of time to attend the council. It would be better, Egypt told her, “that you just e-mail us your statement and we will e-mail our reply.”

The debate became especially heated when certain Western countries highlighted the abuses of religious freedom in Muslim countries—some of which were alluded to in Ms. Jahangir’s report.

Canada called upon Iran to release several Baha’i political leaders. The Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union, also noted the plight of the Bahai’s in Iran.

In its “right to reply,” Iran called these allegations “baseless” and a “distortion of reality.”

The United Kingdom inquired about Ms. Jahangir’s pending requests for country visits to Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Burma, and “particularly Iran.” Ms. Jahangir had repeatedly been denied her requests to investigate rights abuses in Iran.

Canada also urged the Egyptian government to issue identification cards to all its citizens.

Members of certain faiths had been denied this right. Without an official identification card, these Egyptians are unable to have a driver’s license, open a bank account, register children for schools, or be admitted to a government hospital.

Egypt interrupted Canada at this point, arguing that this issue is not mentioned in the report, is thus not a legitimate statement, and should be deleted from the meeting record. Canada rightfully responded that its statement was made in the context of paragraphs 58 and 59 of the reports among others, and continued speaking.

Aside from raising issues surrounding religious freedom for specific groups, Ms. Jahangir has also expressed concern about the attempt by Islamic countries to criminalize “defamation of religions,” i.e. impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on the international community. In this context, the United States stated its concern about the “undue limitations” of freedoms of expression and belief posed by such provisions.