Direct Talk About Direct Talks

by Paul Lademain

Barry Rubin makes some good points:

The big story of the moment is the announcement that there will soon be direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). We will see if this new round of negotiations actually happens or not.

The other thing we need to see are the terms for the talks. Are they designed as a give away to whatever the PA demands? Are they well-organized in some coherent structure? Is this a set-up to allow the Obama Administration to claim credit for getting direct talks going (after messing up and contributing to their not getting started for about 16 months?)

Israel's one-year freeze on building inside settlements is coming to an end. For making this concession, Israel received nothing. Now it will be "rewarded" with the opportunity to renew the freeze. How is there going to be a "democratic, and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors" when about half of that supposed state — the Gaza Strip — is based on a radical Islamist regime that seeks genocide against Israel?

I suggest that someone in the media and politics actually begins to talk about what Israel wants out of a negotiated agreement. We hear constantly about Palestinian demands — a state, 1967 borders, east Jerusalem, return of refugees — as if these were the only things on the table. Yet if Israel's demands — recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, security guarantees, resettlement of refugees in Palestine, non-militarization of a Palestinian State, end of the conflict — are ignored that will sabotage the talks.

Even assuming there was a negotiated settlement, Hamas, Hizballah, Syria, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, among others, would try harder to wreck it. The level of terrorism and conflict would rise even more. Iran, for example, would not stop developing nuclear weapons. The ideas that everything is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict or that resolving the conflict would bring stability and moderation to the region are simply not based on a serious consideration of the area and its politics.

Good points. But how 'bout a fresh approach?

Israel tasks Hillary for a change. First, she will be obliged to produce a list of what she wants Israel to concede, sacrifice, donate, to the arab invaders.
Second, Israel will go deaf, instead of groveling and haggling. Groveling, begging, and haggling invites people to view Jews as guileful chiselers - e.g., nobody respected or admired Barak when he offered Arafat most of Israel's lands in exchange for "recognition" and "peace." You want to know the truth? People here in the US were nauseated by Ehud Barak's craven behavior; Albright was in over her head; Bill Clinton's eye was on the Saudi's mega-million dollar promise to fund his presidential library and of course Hillary benefited from that by proxy.

Israel will stand up straight and respond to Hillary's hubris with its own demands: Israel will demand the complete restoration of all lands recognized as part of the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution and this land encompasses Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and all the land that has since then been handed to the arabs. Jerusalem will be controlled in its entirety by Israel. Israel will keep in reserve its demand for restoration of the Transjordan region to Israel. (For Gossake, Israel has always had Transjordan as a bargaining chip, but it lacked decent, strong-minded statesmen to use it!) *** It appears that Israel's PM loves to bargain, which makes him a soft target for extortion and pressure, which he cannot handle because he loves flattery and "love" more than he values respect.

Israel will expel all illegals and remove the arab seditionists from its parliament (Knesset). The tunnels into Israel will be sealed. Gaza will be restored to Israel and all of Israel's politicians who agreed to give Gaza to the arabs will be prosecuted or fined. Islamics who want to create a new state and who want to be known as "palestinians" will be transfered to Jordan and they will form a separate state within the boundaries of "Jordan".

Restoration of the Temple Mount. Removal of all Waqf from the Temple Mount. Should Jordan balk at Israel's reasonable demands Islamics will be barred from the mosque that remains wrongfully ensconced atop Israel's holiest monument. Anyone who bars Jews from standing atop their Temple Mount will be arrested or fined. Israel will build a new Temple atop the Temple Mount as a symbol of their conquest over the arab invaders. (Do Jews have the stomach for standing up straight and celebrating their own faith? Or are they innately weak, cantankerous and rude? Demanding control over the Temple Mount will be a litmus test.)
Syria will abandon all claims to the Golan Heights or else Israel will demand the right of return for all Jews driven from Syria.

Israel will abandon all of its past feckless attempts to ask, beg, grovel, humiliate itself for peace. (Let old Peres furrow his oily brow and weep tears for his dear sweet jihadis all by himself.) Remember: Israel as an ally is more beneficial to the US than the US is capable of being useful to Israel. Israel will do unto its antagonists as its antagonists have been doing to Israelis. (God will love this.) Jews will abandon their conceits and regain self respect and honest pride without superstitious doubts about God smiting them down. Israel will declare that it has no obligation to prove itself to anyone except to its own citizenry. Any arab who cannot swear allegiance to Israel will be removed to the new state of Islamic Palestine to be formed within the boundaries of Jordan.

Can a Jew demand this? Of course, a real Jew can. (And should.) Israel will need new leaders. Pulpy, pampered, overfed, cowardly, frightened Jews should stay away from the US State Dept. or any other organized body that attempts to meddle into or curtail Israel's sovereign rights. Foreign or NYC Jews who belong to the NIF or TIP need not apply. Soft-skinned, emotionally needy, servile, exhausted, crooked, avaricious, vain, corrupt Jews need not apply. No Madoffs allowed.
Invite the Belgians to attend a ten-thousand missile salute and a flotilla landing to take place in their capital.

Viva Israel from the Secular Christians 4 Zionism!

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net.



Gloria Center

Hypocrisy’s finest hour

Revelations of West’s crimes in Afghanistan highlight anti-Israel hypocrisy

In an interview with PBS earlier this year, Richard Goldstone was quite amazed by a question regarding the suspicion that he and others may, heaven forbid, adopt a double standard in respect to Israel, compared to their attitude to other states, such as the US for example.

Such claims were looked into, Goldstone said without batting an eyelid, adding that the US adopted far-reaching steps in order to protect innocent civilians in Iraq. He further noted that as opposed to Israel's war crimes and vengeful policy in Operation Cast Lead, the Americans made sure to protect innocent civilians, while apologizing in cases where they erred, for example in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Indeed, why the hell should the “bold apartheid objector” (who, as we may recall, happened to enforce racist laws in the past and send dozens of blacks to the gallows) care about some insignificant, trivialities? For example, the fact that during Operation Just Cause in December 1989, US troops in Panama killed 300 to 1,000 civilians; or that in October 1993, a UN force (mostly comprising US units) killed more than 500 Somali civilians, while “carrying out an operation,” of course.”

Elsewhere, 460 to 2,000 civilians were killed during NATO bombings in Kosovo in 1999; in December 2004, in a campaign against Islamist forces in Iraq’s Fallujah, the Americans killed more than 6,000 civilians and obliterated about 10,000 civilian homes. Yet those who determine Israel’s guilt in advance have no use for such humdrum information.

Meanwhile, such trivialities are not at the top of David Cameron’s agenda either. And so, a day after the disclosure of 92,000 documents showing that coalition forces in Afghanistan killed hundreds of local civilians without reporting it, the new British PM found the time (of course, in Turkish PM Ergodan’s presence) to explain why Israel’s flotilla raid was “completely unacceptable,” why Netanyahu must order a “swift, transparent and rigorous inquiry” into the incident (as if Israel hasn’t done so thus far,) and why Gaza is a “prison camp” (of course, Israel’s “blockade” is at fault.)

Probes reserved for Israel
To Cameron’s credit we can say that he is merely another link in the chain of famed British hypocrisy – ranging from senior academicians, the media under the trusted BBC’s orchestration, and all the way to the cultural and artistic elite.

Nonetheless, one still needs to be more than a complete cynic and hopeless hypocrite to slam Israel a day after the Brits themselves were charged with “slightly” more serious offences than curbing the Gaza flotilla (for example, executions of Afghan civilians without a trial.)

When the spirit we see at the White House (and in Britain) is one of harsh condemnation of the disclosure of classified information, without any hint so far to an American or British need to look into the suspicions emerging from the publication, it’s a little difficult to see Cameron or Obama ordering a “swift, transparent and rigorous inquiry” into Israel’s actions.

As we all know, such probes are reserves for a very certain Mideastern state. It’s as though enlightened democratic leaders, just like “progressive” Muslim dictators (who oppress women, minorities, infidels, and in fact most of their citizenry) have trouble managing their own daily affairs without making clear to Israel how morally corrupt it is and how despicable its actions can be.

As we also know, Orwell’s animal farm was an allegory for the pre-1917 Russia and the post-revolution Soviet Union. Yet in our global farm too, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” of course – for example, the US, Britain, and anything that isn’t Israel in the “unbiased” view of Goldstone, Obama, and Cameron.

In Orwell’s story, the pigs take over the farm and rule it firmly, yet in our own wonderful world - where US presidents bow to primitive kings (such as Saudi King Abdullah) yet constantly criticize the Jewish State, where Jewish judges hang blacks yet preach to Israel, and where British PMs seek to ignore findings on the killings of hundreds of civilians but feel uneasy about stopping anti-Israel flotillas – hypocrites were never doing better.

By: Shaul Rosenfeld
Dr. Shaul Rosenfeld is a philosophy lecturer



http://ynetnews.com

An Open Letter to the Palestinians - David White

Why people should NOT support you.

Speaking Truth to the Powerless:
Greetings to any Palestinian who may be reading this. My name is David White. I am a citizen of New Zealand, a small, Western, nominally Christian country in the South Pacific Ocean. I am not Jewish, or Christian, I guess I'm vaguely agnostic. Writing this letter is a good way for me to discuss the horrible mess in the Middle East, spell out as many relevant points as possible concerning the state of the Palestinian people and to see what can be made of them. I don't speak Arabic, so I can only communicate with English-speaking Palestinians.

There aren't many Palestinians here in New Zealand, though, and I haven't yet met any. I don't know how many will ever see these words, but, here's hoping someone does. I have a post-graduate university education and I suppose I could be called an intellectual. Unfortunately, many such people have supported abhorrent ideologies such as Nazism, and continue to support Communism, so I refuse to describe myself in this way. I don't want to considered as just another "trendy leftie" academic, as we would say in New Zealand. So, unlike many university-educated types, I am anti-totalitarian, pro-peace up to a point, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism (except the capitalists running Enron), and skeptical about the "cult of victim-hood." I'm quite safe here in New Zealand and no-one I know has been killed by a Palestinian.

My perspective of Palestinians is something like this - you're Arabs (of course), mostly Muslim, but with a Christian minority. Many of you live outside Gaza/West Bank, mostly in Jordan and other Muslim countries, with some groups living in Western countries as well. You feel that you have been wronged by Israel and are fighting to destroy them.

As for my perspective on Israel, I see them like this. They are a mainly Jewish, small, free-market democracy with a large Arab minority surrounded by hostile Arab dictatorships. They have an ancestral claim to Israel, their state was created as a refuge from persecution, they have a right to exist, and, having survived a holocaust in Europe, they should not have to sit still and wait for another one in the Middle East.

A Down Under Overview
Over the last few months, the conflict in the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank has turned into a war between the Palestinian people and Israel. (I will not apologize for using the term "disputed," as I believe it reflects a rather complicated situation more accurately than "occupied").

Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, seems to be something like this: You have no state of your own, and you are fighting a war against those you call "Zionist oppressors" and "colonial imperialists" in order to create a Palestinian state. Accusations of massacre and human rights violations by the Israeli Army are being tossed around like confetti. Your leader, Yasser Arafat, vows to "martyr" himself rather than "surrender," and that bungling and incompetent organization, the United Nations (again, no apologies for venting personal opinions), is trying to do what it is constitutionally incapable of doing, i.e. "saving future generations from the scourge of war."

The Israelis see things differently, of course. For them, it's a simple battle for survival. They offered you a state, and you attacked them instead. They have occupied Palestinian towns, have fought it out with various armed groups, and desperate attempts are being made by the US, other Arab countries and the UN to break the so-called "cycle of violence." As a result, the Palestinian situation at the moment, generally, can be explained by putting it into New Zealand idiom.

Put bluntly, the Palestinian people are buggered. Munted. Stuffed. Rooted. (American equivalent: screwed, British equivalent: done over). It's like this: Yasser Arafat turned down the Israeli offer of a Palestinian homeland in Gaza and the West Bank. You want, or Arafat claims that you want, a Palestine "from the river to the sea." in other words, "all or nothing."

There is one insuperable obstacle to this- Israel. No matter how eloquent your arguments or numerous your martyrs, no matter how many European diplomats are angered by, or UN resolutions are passed against, Israel, the Israelis are not going to pack up and leave. The only way you will get the Palestinian state you want is to destroy Israel.

This is what you have been trying to do since 1948, and the current "Intifada" launched in 2000 is your latest effort. However, the Israelis are not standing there and letting you kill them. They are fighting back, and if they have to choose between their own survival and yours, guess which choice they'll make.

That has been the overall response to the disaster you have created for yourselves. You, the Palestinian Arabs, are obviously hoping for some kind of international intervention to save you. As we in New Zealand would say, "Get Real!"

A Great Wringing of Hands - A Great Fluttering of Diplomats
The European Union [EU] and the UN have demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past their incompetence and total incapacity to take any sort of firm action without American leadership. Ask your Muslim brothers of Bosnia-Herzegovina, about how effective the EU and the UN were in protecting them without American intervention. In spite of the impression that American diplomatic efforts have created, the US will not take sides against Israel, and will eventually abandon its futile attempts at evenhandedness. If they do join forces militarily with Israel in their war against terrorism, your fighters will be snuffed out like candle flames.

As for your "beloved Arab brothers" in the Middle East...
...they make a great deal of noise about your "liberation struggle", and have sent money and arms, but have not sent a single tank to save you. Their diplomatic proposals are ones that could have been offered at any time, and are aimed at benefiting them, not Palestinians. The Egyptians themselves will not declare war on Israel unless they receive $100 billion to cover their costs.

Do you really believe that the rest of your Arab Muslim brothers think you are worth that much? Do you really believe they will put your interests ahead of their own? Although your friends and Arabs in Europe are passing sanctions and burning synagogues in your support, not a single EU warship has sailed to your aid, and not a single NATO aircraft has dropped a single bomb on your "Zionist oppressors".

I have noted that large numbers of people, including university educated intellectuals support the Palestinian cause. Don't be misled by this. No matter how many western intellectuals, news media and international organizations may support the Palestinian struggle, none of this matters because America stands by Israel.

The Unbearable of Life
How did you get into such a mess? As you yourselves would say and have indeed said on many occasions, it isn't your fault. It's always the "Great Satan" America, and it's "Lesser Satan", Israel, that you blame for all your woes. Everything that you do, such as your "martyrdom operations," are described as the products of your "rage" at being "dispossessed of your land," and of your "helplessness" in the face of "Zionist" might.

There are only 300 million Arabs against over 5 million Jews! How unfair! How unjust, that so many can do so little against so few! A number of Western commentators have put Arab failures down to numerous cultural factors, not the least being Islam. Your religious beliefs in martyrdom and jihad, coupled with a total inability to accept any blame for your own predicament, have combined to do you great and lasting damage.

Look closely at why Western countries such as Israel have succeeded and Muslim countries have not. Western countries are free-market democracies. Muslim countries (other than Turkey) aren't. Surely that should tell you something!

As I said, I do not, and I will not, support the Palestinian cause. Why not? I have a number of reasons, and here they are:
1. You have made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that you intend to destroy Israel and kill or drive out its Jewish population. This is genocide, pure and simple. You justify this by saying that Israel has committed many crimes against your people, and that you seek "justice." I say this in response- NOTHING WHATSOEVER is an acceptable justification for genocide. Loss of land, humiliation at being militarily defeated - others have suffered these and moved on to create new nations and opportunities for themselves.

Examples abound- the Germans thrown out of East Prussia in Europe, 1945, the Nationalist Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949, to name but two. Germans and Taiwanese have coped with military defeat and the loss of land. They haven't warred with their neighbors, nor have they launched terrorist attacks upon them. Both countries have more wealth than any Arab nation. Why can't Palestinians cope? Are Germans and Chinese better able to deal with adversity than Arabs?

2. You have accused the Israelis of "genocide" against you. Here's a question for you: Israel has atomic bombs and powerful military forces. If they really, truly wanted you all dead, they could easily do it. Why haven't they? If the Israelis went all-out, you would be, as we say in New Zealand, "dog tucker". Why did they spend so much time negotiating with your leaders? Because Israel wants peace and secure borders. You refuse to give them even those. You plan genocide and accuse Israel of the same crime. Prove it!

3. The use of terrorism. Killing people for being Jewish is despicable. Terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are also despicable. At this point, I'd like to pause and get a question of nomenclature cleared up, regarding those Palestinians who kill themselves and others with explosives strapped to their bodies. You call them "martyrs." Western media sources and academics debate the precise term to use in describing them. Others, including the Israelis, call them terrorists.

I have a better, more appropriate term. I prefer to use the word "kamikazes." The original kamikazes appeared in 1944, in the war in the Pacific. They were Japanese Navy and Army pilots, organized into "Special Attack Units" with orders to crash their planes into American warships, in the hope of destroying them - "one plane, one ship". Their initial impact was similar to that of the Al-Quaeda attacks on New York and the Pentagon- shock and horror. (I noted that many Palestinians appeared on Western TV celebrating the September attacks). Note: The American response, in both cases was not the one hoped for.

Once the shock had worn off, the US set out to destroy the kamikazes, and terrible destruction was rained down on Japan, ending only with 2 atomic bombs. You know what is happening right now in Afghanistan to the Al-Quaeda group.

4. Using children as suicide bombers. Anyone who teaches children to kill themselves in suicide attacks is not worth supporting under any circumstances. For you to do this to your children is an abomination. A commentator on a Web magazine said that if the Palestinians laid down their arms, they would get peace and land. If the Israelis laid down their arms, they would be killed. You know that is true, even if most of Europe doesn't. Your cause is evil, because it seeks destruction at any price. Genocide is not justice. Sacrificing your own children for the sake of your leader's personal ambitions is wicked.

That's why I cannot support you. That's why I stand with Israel.

Palestinian Past or Future?
The Second World War in Europe ended with Hitler's suicide. He was replaced by Admiral Doenitz who quickly made peace with the Allies. Japan's leader, Emperor Hirohito, decided on surrender rather than see his nation destroyed. If Arafat chooses surrender, though, will the rest of the Palestinians go along with it? If he dies, will the war end? If the answer to both of these questions is No, then the Palestinian people are doomed. Do you really prefer death as a people? Do you fully comprehend what you are doing? If you are indeed aware that the path you have embarked on leads to destruction, and if you have freely chosen to walk in that direction, then as a people you are truly beyond hope.

Are Palestinians really going to be a "Kamikaze Nation?"
Are you really going to give Israel no other option except your destruction? If they must choose, then as Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld said, "better a terrible end than terror without end."
Do not think that kamikaze tactics can get you what you want. The Israelis can tell you all about Masada, if you ask them. Remember what happened to the Japanese at places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Palestinians deserve better than the current mess you are in now - but before you can be given anything, you must offer a sincere peace, you must stop teaching your children to hate, you must stop believing that "victim-hood" justifies everything and - above all other things - GIVE UP ISRAEL! Accept that you will never go there again except perhaps as workers or tourists. Accept that Jews are human beings. Accept the verdict of 1948 and learn to live with it.

Invest in banks, not bombs. Build computer chips, not Kalashnikovs. Teach science and mathematics, not hate. Look to the future, not the past. Stop blaming Americans and Jews for all your problems, and take responsibility for your own actions. Read those parts in the Quran about living with the "peoples of the Book."

Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime minister, is quoted as saying, " There will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel ." Every time I see pictures of Palestinian children waving guns and wearing dummy explosives, then I can only say she is right. The alternative to peace is not victory but death. Think about it- before it's too late.

David White
Auckland, New Zealand

Dear World

Dear World,
I understand that you are upset by us, here in Israel.

Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. (Outraged?)
Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset by us. Today, it is the "brutal repression of the Palestinians"; yesterday it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War and the Sinai campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily.

Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we - the Jewish people - upset you.
We upset a German people who elected Hitler and upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians and Romanians. And we go back a long, long way in the history of world upset.

We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us.

For centuries, we upset a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions, and we upset the arch-enemy of the church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit. And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking - and establish a Jewish state.

The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you and disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you (and thus love you)- and have you love us and so, we decided to come home - home to the same land we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.

Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please.
Having left you and your pogroms and inquisitions and crusades and holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state, we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East

Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The "radical" Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel.

In 1920 and 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron in 1929.

Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967?

And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936-39? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967?

And when you, dear world, proposed a UN Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a "Palestinian State" alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried "no" and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that "upset" caused by the aggression of 1967?

And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of "upset" then?

The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state -attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea.

The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "itbach-al-yahud" (Massacre the Jew!) that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not "repress" them.

Dear world, you stood by during the holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction.

And since we know that the Arabs-Palestinians dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less and, frankly doesn't give a damn....

Much Gratitude to the Friends of Israel

I would like to take this opportunity to give much gratitude to the people who support Israel and who do not fear to support the truth that most of the world chooses to ignore.











The IDF is the most humane army in the world; you'll never find another army that notifies innocent civilians before bombing an area from which operates enemy combatants. You will never see another army that meets blockade runners, (the flotilla of "peace") with paintball guns - and do you know why?

Because we have regard for human life and we have morals!

It is a shame that the world refuses to see this and prefers to pity the "Palestinians" sending their children to suicide bomb us, thereafter condemning us for self-defense; a right that's given to any other country and people without question.

God bless Israel and the Jewish People: We will never leave Israel, our only home while the Arabs have twenty-two states and the Muslims have forty-seven.

One day, the world will awaken, as it did to the threat of Hitler after Munich - and discover that Islam is not just after all of Israel's land - it wants to conquer the entire world.

Thank you very much all the friends of Israel, your support is much appreciated. God bless you, walk in peace and come in peace.

THE RETURN TO ZION

A return through both time and space to their ancestral homeland

The Land of Israel was never devoid of Jews, although at times she numbered only in the tens of thousands. This was because the land was virtually uninhabitable when the Jews once again began their God-given right AND duty to return en masse to the land of their forefathers (the Zionist Movement) in the 1880s. The silly rhetoric about a massive Arab presence being overrun by "invading Jews" is quickly dispelled by Mark Twain, who visited the area in 1867. From his book, "The Innocents Abroad"... "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

The Jews did not displace anyone, because very few of the people who were there actually owned the land. Most were absentee owners residing elsewhere. Another fact hardly mentioned by the "new historians" is that the arriving Jews never threw anyone off any land. All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem.

From 1888 until 1915 there were about six locust plagues that made the land nearly uninhabitable. In the 1915 locust plague alone some 40,000 people died and large numbers of Jews and Arabs left the land. Those that returned did not do so until about 1922 when the Zionist money to reclaim the land started coming in and a pipe line was laid. Then both Arabs and Jews started to come in in large numbers.

Palestine's early Jewish Zionists were idealistic pioneers who arrived in pre-state Israel with every intention of living in peace alongside their Arab neighbors and upgrading the quality of life for all of the land's inhabitants. These pre-Israel Zionists (and later, Israelis) had tried to develop peacefully for the dual benefit of Jews and Arabs in the land. But the Arab leadership always, starting in the earliest days, took the low road of insisting that the only solution was for the Jews to get out, even if that meant continued poverty and stagnation. When Arab demands were not met, they always resorted to violence.

The vast majority of Arabs came to the area after these early Zionist pioneers began draining the malaria-infested swamps (above photo) and plowing the land! In doing so, these Jews created the economic opportunities and medical availabilities which attracted Arabs from both surrounding territories and far-away lands! In fact, over 90% of the Arabs migrated there within the last one hundred years. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" were interlopers and squatters originating from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other lands who simply took possession of pieces of land. So much for their unfounded claims that they have been there since "time immemorial!" These Arabs came from disorganized collections of tribes with a tradition of constantly terrorizing each other and trying to seize land from their neighbors. Many of them were social outcasts and criminals who could not find jobs in their own countries so they searched for their luck elsewhere. Unfortunately, those Arab immigrants imported into the Holy Land their age-old culture of terrorizing neighbors in order to seize land. In fact, today's Arab "Palestinians", let by Arafat and his PLO (sanitized to the PA, or Palestinian Authority...which is nothing more than A Network of Murderers Masquerading As Government!) are still nothing more than street thugs, bullies and 'Little Saddams' found elsewhere throughout most of the most Arab world.

Yet while the returning Jews were highly motivated to restore the land, the Arabs seethed with envy and hatred for they lacked both the leadership to inspire and motivate them for they were, in fact, historical strangers to this land! Unlike the Jews, those Arabs who immigrated there had no ancient attachments to or historical memories of this homeland ... this ancient Land of the JEWS!

The real problem facing those Arabs today is not the lack of a homeland. The historical root-cause of their problem and frustration is the fact that the countries they came from have not agreed to accept them back in. This is why so many of them live, up until today, in refugee camps, in neighboring Arab countries, lacking fundamental civil rights. In their frustration they feel that the only hope and choice they have is to try and steal someone else's country!

In Conclusion:

There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War! In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.

Archeological sites to this very day continue to yield artifacts with Hebrew writing, not some fictitious "Palestinian" or Arabic text! The so-called "Palestinian" Arabs were simply then, as they are now, Arabs no different culturally, historically or ethnically from other Arabs living in any of the 24 Arab countries from which they emigrated. The suggestion that the "Palestinians" are some sub-group of Arabs with their own unique identity is pure fiction! Great propaganda... but still pure fiction! And had not the Arabs continued to brainwash generation upon generation into believing this HISTORICAL HOGWASH about some ancient "Arab Palestinian" ties to the Holy Land, most could have gotten themselves a real life by now with much less bloodshed and suffering for everyone concerned!

On The Main Road From Shechem To Jerusalem, 1913.

For more remarkable Pictures of that time, please click HERE






By: Masada 2000

Facing Unpleasant Facts in the Middle East

By Steven Plaut

The world is now well into the Post-Oslo era, in which the delusions and denials of reality that were the foundations of the "Oslo peace process" are at last being acknowledged for what they were. For those returning to the planet Earth from Fantasyland in the "Oslo" parallel universe, it behooves them and us all to bear in mind some of the unpleasant facts of life about the Middle East.

1. The Arab world has never come to terms with Israel's existence within ANY set of borders whatsoever and is still seeking the destruction of Israel and its population.
2. ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, and not stability nor peaceful relations. It will seek warfare with Israel and not solutions to the economic and social problems of its citizens.
3. The only reason Arafat and the PLO ever wanted control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was to use them as bases for attacks on Israel. This is the only real use to which they will be put by any future Palestinian state.
4. There is no alternative that will stop the bloodshed and war in the Middle East other than the adoption by Israel of an unambiguous policy of R&D, that is, of Re-Occupation and Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Every other alternative proposal for stabilization and pacification is delusional.
5. Denazification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be based partly on the programs of Denazification imposed on Germany and Japan by the Allies after World War II, but in part must be different. Such Denazification policies will have to stay in place for decades. There is no other way in which Israel can prevent the daily massacre of its civilians by the Palestinian terrorists.
6. The bulk of Palestinians have lived outside Israeli "occupation" for years, and their "liberation" from Israeli "occupation" only produced Nazification, terrorism, mass murders, and radicalization. Their pacification requires reimposing of martial rule by Israel.
7. The instability of the Middle East is not caused by Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands but by PLO occupation of Israeli lands.
8. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state.
9. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the right to set up their own state. It is doubtful whether they ever did have such a right, but even if they did - they forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism.
10. Palestinians are Arabs. The Arabs already rule 22 states. There is no reason why they should be entitled to a 23rd, and creation of such a 23rd Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza will escalate Middle East violence and world terrorism.
11. The Palestinians are not and never were a "nation". They are not even a tribe. They are a branch of Arabs with only minor secondary cultural differences that distinguish them from Syrians, Lebanese or Jordanians.
12. The Middle East conflict cannot be resolved through endless exhibitions of niceness and restraint by Israel. Israeli niceness, restraint, and goodwill gestures are interpreted by the Arab world as weakness and as signs that the Jews, like Paul McCartney's Band, are on the run.
13. The Palestinians are not "mistreated" by Israel, but ARE poorly treated by the PLO.
14. The only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule.
15. Israeli Arabs are the best-treated minority in the Middle East and are treated far better than are Arabs living in Arab states. If the intifada "uprising" were in fact a product of oppression and mistreatment of Arabs by a government, then Israel should be the only country in the Middle East that does NOT have an intifada.
16. Oslo has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians who call openly for violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel.
17. There exists no set of concessions by Israel that would result in the Arab states coming to terms with Israel's existence.
18. There are no Arab democracies and no support for democracy among significant minorities within the Arab world.
19. Israeli assassination of Palestinian terrorists is in fact a substitute for retaliation in kind against the Palestinians for bombings of Israeli children and other civilians. The alternative to such assassinations is bombings of Palestinian civilians.
20. Israeli settlements are the "mine canaries" of the Arab world. There is no reason why Jewish civilians should not be free to live in peace within Arab countries truly seeking peace with Israel, just as Arabs live at peace within Israel and within the United States. The attitude of the Arab world in general and of the PLO in particular towards such "settlements" is indicative of their attitudes towards Israel and Jews in general. If the Palestinians are NOT seeking peace with the Jews, and they are not, then the real problem is that Israel has built too few settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
21. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate.
22. There is an inverse relationship between the material comfort of Arabs living under Israeli rule and political moderation. The better off they are in a material sense, the more violent and radical they are. More generally, Arab radicalism and terror are positively correlated with comfort and education and wealth. Bin Laden and his people are filthy rich. There have been no undernourished Palestinian suicide bombers.
23. Palestinians endorse terrorism and violence against Jews by near-universal majorities.
24. Israeli Arabs endorse terror and violence against Jews by large majorities. They also support bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
25. There are no visible Palestinian public figures who oppose violence, terror and Islamist fascism.
26. There is not and never has been a Palestinian "peace movement".
27. The Hamas and Jihad are for all intents and purposes wings of the PLO, regardless of who actually serve as their day-to-day commanders.
28. The PLO is itself very much a manifestation of Islamist fascism and was founded by Islamist fundamentalists.
29. Asking Arafat to arrest the terrorists is a bit like asking Osama bin Laden to arrest those responsible for September 11 or asking Libya's Khaddafi to arrest those responsible for the Lockerbie downing of the Pan Am flight or asking Hitler to take steps against those who invaded Poland. It is all part of the Oslo era of delusion.
30. Peace cannot be achieved through pretending that war does not exist.
31. The Israeli Left is responsible for the bloodshed in Israel. The
Israeli Left rescued the PLO from oblivion in the early 1990s, armed it, and allowed it to become entrenched in the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israeli Left is as wacky as is the pro-Taliban campus Left in the United States.
32. Ariel Sharon has yet to detach himself fully, at least in public, from the pipe dreams and denials of reality imposed on the country by the Israeli Left, those that produced the Oslo debacle.
33. The only peaceful terrorist is a dead terrorist.
34. Israel cannot restore the credibility of its military prowess through "signaling," but rather only through using that prowess and putting its military might to actual use.

"Occupation" as an Excuse for Terrorism

By Carlos

No reasonable person can doubt that Palestinian extremists have been committing terrorist acts against the Israeli civilian population on a very wide scale. Call it what you will, under the banners of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades and others, these terrorists have intentionally targeted the most defenseless Israelis, including infants, children, and the elderly. They say they must do it to fight the "Israeli occupation." They say they have no alternative.

The word "occupation" is indeed the most powerful weapon in the Palestinians' propaganda arsenal. It is a serious charge. Therefore we must examine the questions: Just what is this "occupation," and is it a legitimate excuse for violence against innocent people?

The claim that "occupation" excuses terrorism has made Palestinian extremists seem credible and has made gratuitous violence look legitimate. Aside from the very obvious moral weakness of any attempt to excuse intentional violence against civilians, the claim is false for at least two basic reasons:

1. Arabs committed terrorist atrocities against Jewish civilians years before the existence of what is now called the "occupation."

2. The Palestinians refused even to negotiate a genuine peace offer that could soon have ended the so-called "occupation." There was never any need to resort to violence.

These two facts are enough to invalidate any attempt to use "occupation" to justify terrorism. The "occupation" excuse for terrorism has persisted nevertheless, and so deserves a full examination.

The word "occupation" in this discussion refers to the presence of Israelis in the West Bank and in Gaza. What is its origin?

Before 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt, and Israel had nothing to do with them. Then came the Six Day War.

In the spring of 1967 the Arab states were preparing for war. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force to leave the Sinai. Egyptian and Syrian troops massed along the Israeli border. Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and blockaded the port of Eilat. This itself was an act of war. Cutting off a major supply route placed Israel in a stranglehold.

The Arabs made their intentions clear. An official radio broadcast proclaimed:

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

Israel, knowing its existence was threatened, launched a preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force. The result was an Israeli victory in a surprisingly short period of time. Afterwards Israel found itself in control of pieces of Arab territory in the front-line states that had attacked it: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

On June 19, 1967 the Israeli Unity Government announced that it was willing to give back these territories in return for peace treaties and normalization of relations. The Arabs responded with resolutions passed at the Khartoum Conference held at the end of that summer. Then as now, the Arab response to an offer of peace was belligerence. Article 3 of the Khartoum Resolutions states:

The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country. [Emphasis added]

Over time the situation with Egypt did improve. Largely due to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's bold gesture for peace, for which he paid with his life, Israel was able to negotiate a treaty with Egypt, which included return of the Sinai. The negotiations were hard and took years, but they have proven that Israel values peace more than the land it captured in 1967 and is ready to negotiate the return of the land as part of any serious peace offer.

In contrast, the situation in the West Bank steadily deteriorated. Any hope of reaching an accord with Jordan ended in 1988 when King Hussein relinquished all claims to the West Bank, severed all administrative ties, and canceled his investments there. Israel was left with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the only possible partner to any negotiations.

In 1992 disillusion with the policies of Yitzhak Shamir and the desire to try new approaches to peace led to the election of his Labor Party rival Yitzhak Rabin. While Shamir did not truly believe in the negotiation process, Rabin had faith that it could lead to results. The history of the Oslo agreement is complicated and beyond the scope of this essay, but we do need to consider its basic provisions.

The agreement of September 1993 consisted of mutual letters of recognition, plus a "Declaration of Principles" (DOP). In these letters Yasser Arafat affirmed the right of Israel to exist, and Yitzhak Rabin formally recognized the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat also promised to renounce terrorism and to control those factions that would still engage in it.

The intention of the DOP was to provide for a gradual process of Palestinian autonomy over the West Bank and Gaza, beginning with Gaza and Jericho. To that end a "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority" was to govern the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank for a transitional period of at most five years, during which time permanent status negotiations would take place. The parties were to negotiate an "interim agreement" specifying the structure of this Self-Government Authority or "Council" and the transfer of power from the Israeli military government to this Council.

There were delays in the implementation of the DOP. Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho was achieved in May 1994, five months behind schedule. And in September 1995, two years after the initial accords, Rabin and Arafat signed the "interim agreement." Known popularly as "Oslo II," it was a detailed prescription for Palestinian autonomy.

Oslo II was far more comprehensive than Oslo I, comprising over 300 pages. It provided for the election of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, more commonly known as the Palestinian Authority, and specified its powers. It also provided for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the establishment of a Palestinian police force, and the creation of a safe passageway between Gaza and the West Bank. But the heart of the agreement was a prescription for gradual Israeli withdrawal from the territories. The West Bank was divided into three zones:

Zone A consisted of the major Palestinian cities: Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron. In these areas, to be evacuated by Israel, the Palestinian Authority would have full jurisdiction over both civil affairs and security.

Zone B consisted of the more rural areas, including hundreds of small towns and villages. In this zone the Palestinian Authority would have full jurisdiction over civil affairs and internal security, while Israel retained authority over external security.

Zone C consisted of areas that were largely unpopulated, as well as Israeli settlements and military camps. Here the Palestinian Authority would have control over civil affairs, while Israel remained responsible for both internal and external security.

Israel was gradually to transfer Zone B areas to Zone A status, and Zone C areas to Zone B. This would prepare the way for the final stage of this peace process, the permanent status negotiations.

To summarize, Zone A consisted of areas under Palestinian control, Zone B of areas under joint control, and Zone C of areas under Israeli control, with a process in motion to achieve steadily increasing Palestinian autonomy in all areas.

The plan should have worked. Both parties agreed to it. It was based on the same land-for-peace principle that had worked with Egypt. So what happened after Oslo?

Arab violence against Israelis not only continued, it intensified. After Israel withdrew from Jericho and the Gaza Strip, those places became safe bases of operation for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. By the end of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from all Zone A cities save Hebron. A rash of terrorism including suicide bomb attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in early 1996 caused a delay of Israel's departure from Hebron. Arafat proved either unwilling or unable to control the terrorists responsible for these attacks, and indeed members of his own Fatah group perpetrated much of the violence. Israel finally withdrew from most of Hebron immediately after ratifying the Hebron Accord in January 1997.

And so since 1997 the Palestinian Authority had total jurisdiction over all Palestinians living in the seven Zone A cities plus Jericho. These areas comprised about 60% of the Palestinian population. Almost all of the rest lived in the smaller towns of Zone B, over which the Palestinian Authority had civil jurisdiction with Israel responsible only for security. The Palestinians had achieved self-rule. There was no longer any occupation in any real sense of the word.

But instead of getting better, things got worse.

After Oslo a new form of terrorism became increasingly common: bus bombings. These attacks were especially deadly, the fatality rate much higher with the explosion confined to a small enclosed space. Suicide bombing and other violence spread rapidly to all areas where civilians congregate: dance halls, shopping malls, birthday parties, holiday celebrations, even children's bedrooms. No one was safe.

Yasser Arafat, signer of the Oslo Agreement, was complicit in this terrorism. He signed the checks that financed many of the terrorist operations.(6) He was the Commander of Fatah and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades. The areas that Israel turned over to Palestinian control under the Oslo Accords became terrorist strongholds. Jenin became the capital of the suicide bombers. Nablus became the terrorist leaders' headquarters as well as their major bomb factory. Hamas developed Qassam 2 rockets in Gaza, built them in Nablus, and shipped them to Tulkarem for use against cities in central Israel. This was the Palestinian response to the concessions Israel made at Oslo.

The great irony here is that it is not Israeli "occupation" that provokes escalations of Palestinian terrorism but rather steps taken to diminish the Israeli presence in the territories. Palestinian terrorism has only increased since Oslo. And the greatest escalation of terrorism in history came after the historic peace offer of Camp David 2000, when Israel signed on to an American plan that would have ceded to the Palestinians virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip plus shared control over Jerusalem. The Palestinian response to this peace offer was the Second Intifada, which grew so bloody, to the point of suicide bombing attacks almost every day, that Israel had to take drastic measures during Operation Defensive Shield and reenter the Palestinian cities that had been granted autonomy under Oslo. This Palestinian answer to the peace process has so far claimed 500 Israeli dead and 4,000 wounded.

The big lie behind Palestinian terrorism is that it is a response to Israeli occupation. Palestinian terrorism began long before Israel gained control of the territories in 1967, and the more autonomy (that is, the less "occupation") the Palestinians gained, the worse the terrorism became. The Palestinians have shown the world conclusively what they would do with their autonomy and with their own state if they ever acquire one: turn it into one big suicide bomb aimed at the heart of Israel, taking Israel down and themselves with it.

What can possibly account for such irrationality?

If the Palestinian agenda were really to acquire a state of their own, they would have achieved it by now. If we understand the Palestinian goal to be an end of Israeli "occupation" in the West Bank and Gaza so that they can establish their own state there, then their strategy makes no sense. They could have done so much more quickly and without all this bloodshed. The Palestinian strategy makes sense only if we understand what their goal really is.

The Palestinians are smart, much smarter than the Israelis when it comes to public relations. The word "occupation" has a double meaning, and they use it knowing that Western people understand it one way while they themselves understand it in another. To the West, "occupation" means Israeli presence in territories captured in the 1967 war. To the Palestinians, "occupation" means the existence of Israel itself. Their own maps have no "Israel" at all but show the entire area, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, as "Palestine."

Occasionally in news interviews given in English one can hear a Palestinian spokesperson slip and talk about "fifty years of occupation," going all the way back to the creation of the State of Israel. Often when speaking to friendly audiences they do not even try to hide it. In an article entitled "Mother's Day Rally: Over 50 Years of Occupation" a staff writer for the Ottawa Muslim Network writes:

End The Occupation! No Land No Peace! These are the slogans shouted by thousands who gathered on Mother's day on Parliament Hill to voice their support for Palestinians and to oppose the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. May 15, 2002 marks the 54th anniversary of the occupation of Palestine and the crowd in front of the Peace Tower were reminded of the unrelenting struggle of generations of Palestinians.

And in her address to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa no less a figure than Hanan Ashrawi spoke of "occupation" pre-1967:

In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population that has come to be known as the refugee question that currently encompasses more than 5 million Palestinians. On the other hand, those that remained were subject to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties including their national identity on their own land.

This paragraph is full of distortions and lies, only one of them being that an "occupation" started in 1948. To the Palestinians, "occupation" means the existence of Israel itself; yet by clever use of language they have turned the word into a potent propaganda tool justifying the worst kind of brutality. They have gotten the world to sympathize with them while their nail-packed bombs tear apart the bodies of innocent people.

What then can we say about Oslo from Israel's perspective? Was it a mistake?

Oslo was a tragic mistake in that by granting the Palestinians autonomy without insisting that they live up to their promises, Israel has compromised its security more than ever. But Oslo was a necessary mistake. Israel had to participate, to do what it could to give peace a chance. The Oslo process began at a more optimistic time, when there seemed to be real hope for peace, when people believed that if only the Palestinians would remove from their charter the clauses urging Israel's destruction that their hearts would change and they would become real partners for peace. It took Oslo, plus the rejected peace offer of Camp David 2000, to reveal to the world, once and for all, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Palestinians' true intentions. And still the world refuses to listen.

And yet from the beginning there were signs of what was to come. On the very same day that he signed the Oslo Accord, Arafat gave a speech on Jordanian television indicating he had no intention whatsoever of abiding by it:

O, my beloved ones, do not forget that our Palestine National Council adopted the resolution in l974. It called for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil that is liberated or from which the Israelis withdraw. This is the fruit of your struggle, sacrifice and Jihad....

Long live Palestine, free and Arab!

The "resolution in 1974" to which Arafat refers is the infamous "Phased Plan" for Israel's destruction, a reference well known to his television audience. Many times when speaking to his own people Arafat referred to Oslo as a step in this Phased Plan. And both Arafat and Feisal Husseini, another Palestinian negotiator, have compared Oslo to a "Trojan Horse," a weapon poised to penetrate Israel's defenses and destroy it from within.

"Occupation" is not only the lie that fuels the Intifada, it is the Palestinians' most potent excuse for Israel's destruction. A knowledge of history exposes the lie. But one important question still remains: Why has this lie so easily taken root?

It is difficult to respond to the word "occupation" because the word itself has become a powerful slogan whose purpose is to turn off thought and elicit sympathy for terrorism. Such manipulations of people's emotions are always hard to counter. Reason and reflection are often no match for prejudice and hatred - but only in the short term. Prejudice and hatred abound not only in the front-line Muslim states but also in those countries that accept the "occupation" excuse reflexively, without considering the other side. Nevertheless, the truth must continue to be told. Like water dripping on a rock, after time its effect on people of good will can overcome even the hardness of a heart calcified by prejudice.

Lies have power only when people are willing to believe them. Most of the nations of the world, not only the Arab states but the countries of Europe as well, have shown themselves only too willing to embrace this lie. When terrorists receive not condemnation but sympathy for committing terrorist acts, then those who give their sympathy become accomplices. Let those nations of the world who give tacit approval to the deaths of innocent children and grandparents deal not only with their consciences but with the results of their own policies when they in turn become the victims of terrorism.

Noam Chomsky - Lies About America and Israel

By: James DeMeo

For awhile, it seemed the European intellectual scene would be completely flooded by the conspiracy materials, without any counter-critique whatsoever, when Der Spiegel waded in 2003 into the quagmire with the article "Panoply of the Absurd" revealing the most obvious distortions and fabrications, and in so doing, considerably drained the swamp. However, Der Spiegel (a liberal-left publication with anti-American sentiments) avoided discussion of two of the larger and probably more radically "serious" but willfully deceptive critics of the USA, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, whose influence and book sales have soared in inverse proportion to their factual content. Fans of these two fiction-writers certainly will protest to hear them described as having abandoned factual emphasis, so I shall give a few of the essentials, with web links for access to the full load of devastating, though "struggling to catch-up" truth. Like the 9-11 conspiracy-theory books, these two authors appear to have a much larger audience in Europe than in America.

Noam Chomsky is best known for his missives against the USA and Israel, who are misportrayed as the cause of all the world's problems. In this, he echoes the Islamo-fascists who rail against the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan", an idee fixe so intellectually nailed to the floor that he successfully avoids any mention of the genocidal butchery and crimes committed by the "Saharasian" Soviet Union, Red China and the multiple branches of the COMINTERN (100 million dead from that nasty bunch) -- except perhaps to either blame their crimes on the USA and Israel, or deny that they occurred at all.

But most people reading Chomsky won't know about his friendly relations with the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, except perhaps in France where those relationships have been more widely exposed. Chomsky wrote a glowing endorsement-foreword to a 1980 French-language autobiography by Robert Faurisson, who is best known for his many writings which claim the Holocaust never happened and the Nazi gas chambers did not exist. In 1984 Chomsky gave the publishing rights to one of his books to a French neo-Nazi publisher, rescuing it from bankruptcy, and he co-authored another book with a radical terrorist apologist, Edward Said, published in 1983 by a notorious neo-Nazi publishing house in the USA.

His books and audiotapes are openly sold and/or indexed on neo-Nazi websites, along with the writings of Adolf Hitler and nearly every historical revisionist and Holocaust denier imaginable, with no apparent embarrasment or objections by Chomsky. And as late as 1986 he allowed one of his articles to appear in the Journal of Historical Review, mouthpiece for the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review, which gives favorable attention to most all his other writings.
There is more.

Until most recently I had no idea about the extent of Chomsky's anti-Semitic activities, as in the USA and probably in most of Europe as well, he successfully passes himself as a "radical anti-capitalist" and "rational social critic" from the political Left. Full documentation on this matter is presented in the well-researched book by Werner Cohn, "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers." The book also is posted on-line by the author, who is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. Deborah Lipstadt, a powerful anti-fascist scholar who had done battle with the neo-Nazis on many occasions, also addressed the sordid Chomsky-Faurisson matter, and most books factually discussing modern anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial will include a discussion on Chomsky.

His die-hard supporters, however, either claim Chomsky's actions are a "defense of free-speech rights for Holocaust-deniers" (certainly it is much more than that), or they don't want to know about it at all. His distortions both in supporting the Holocaust deniers, and then trying to misrepresent his support as merely "defending free speech" is part of a larger pattern of misrepresentations which permeate his entire body of writings.

Many legitimate and respectable internet sites and books provide a veritable index-list of specific rebuttals to Chomsky's claims and writings, correcting his multiple distortions of historical and recent events. A particularly good book is "The Anti-Chomsky Reader" Edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, published in late 2004.

Among the revelations are his flirtations and embrace of Stalinism and Holocaust-denial, as well as justification of Islamist terrorism. The above revelations, and a good examination of the specific critical materials cited, should discredit Chomsky for anyone with genuinely liberal sentiments, a.k.a. someone concerned about genocide, justice, human rights, freedom, honesty, genuine scholarship, totalitarianism, etc.

But people who drink from the revisionist's poisoned well spew hate at Americans, "The Jews" (or euphemisms for Jews, such as Zionists, international bankers, gold traders, money lenders, etc.) and Western democracy in general. In fact, Western democracy has become the new scapegoat among those who enjoy all the benefits the West can offer, while simultaneously openly supporting the most blood-soaked dictators and totalitarian fanatics one could imagine. The strange phenomenon of Western intellectuals, movie-stars and the so-called anti-war activists, throwing hate at Bush only to give big friendly hugs to mass-murderers like Saddam Hussein or
Kim Jung Il.

They would have us believe, the world would be a better place if only the West, in general, and the US and Israel, in particular, would cease to exist. Chomsky's widespread network of imitators and supporters, who uncritically parrot his distortions don't seem bothered by his helpful support for the crass Jew-hatred and historical revisionism of the Holocaust deniers, nor about the falsehoods discovered in his citations.

If he tells the truth will he survive?

What is the future for his blind followers?

You might also like:

Quotes About Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky Lies About Arab Israeli Peace Process

Noam Chomsky Lies About War on Terrorism

Noam Chomsky Lies About Terrorist Atrocities

Noam Chomsky Lies About Arab Israeli Wars

10 Noam Chomsky Lies About the Arab-Israeli Peace Process

Paul Bogdanor has compiled a handy list of Noam Chomsky's top 200 lies on topics ranging from Israeli-Arab wars and Communism to Latin America and himself.

I compiled 40 of them that apeaking on the Israeli Arab conflict.

If he tells the truth will he survive?

What is the future for his blind followers?

1) The Lie: “the policies of Hamas are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel… There is a long-standing international
consensus that goes back over thirty years that there should be a two-state political settlement
on the international border… Hamas is willing to accept that as a long-term truce.”

The Truth: Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction: “Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded... Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make
them lose their brains” (Hamas leader Khaled Mashal); “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and
their supporters… count their numbers and kill them all, down to the very last one” (Hamas
parliamentary speaker Ahmad Bahr).

2) The Lie: “[Hezbollah’s] Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and persuasive argument that they [arms] should be in the hands of Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression...”

The Truth: Hezbollah’s goal is not to deter aggression but to wage war “until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.” Nasrallah has pledged to “finish off the entire cancerous Zionist project.” He has stated: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

3) The Lie: “There has been one elected leader in the Middle East, one, who was elected in a reasonably fair, supervised election... namely Yassir Arafat. So how do the great ‘democrats’ like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld treat him? Lock him up in a compound so that he can be battered by US-provided arms to their local client under military occupation.”

The Truth: Israel and Turkey both had freely elected leaders. The Palestinian elections were rigged, and Arafat’s PLO colleagues compared him to Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. Arafat was trapped in his compound after he sabotaged the peace process and started a campaign of violence.

4) The Lie: “Clinton-Barak advanced a few steps towards a Bantustan-style settlement… three cantons [in the West Bank], under Israeli control, virtually separated from one another and from the fourth enclave, a small area of East Jerusalem… In the fifth canton, Gaza, the outcome was left unclear except that the population were also to remain virtually imprisoned. It is understandable that maps are not to be found in the US mainstream, or any of the details of the proposals.”

The Truth: The PLO leadership boasted that “Barak agreed to a withdrawal from 95% of the occupied Palestinian lands” and pledged that “our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea.”

5) The Lie: “These facts are automatically cut out of history, along with others unacceptable to US power, including repeated PLO initiatives through the 1980s calling for negotiations with Israel leading to mutual recognition.”

The Truth: At the end of the 1980s, PLO deputy leader Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) declared: “There was no PLO recognition of Israel.” PLO leader Yasser Arafat issued a joint statement with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi avowing that “the so-called ‘State of Israel’ was one of the consequences of World War II and should disappear, like the Berlin Wall.

6) The Lie: “[By 1982] The PLO was getting extremely annoying [to Israel] with its insistence on [a] negotiated settlement of the conflict.”

The Truth: The PLO stated: “Peace for us means the destruction of Israel… We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home and until we destroy Israel.” The PLO announced: “We wish at any price to liquidate the state of Israel.” The PLO declared: “We shall never allow Israel to live in peace… We shall never recognize Israel...

7) The Lie:“In January 1976, the US was compelled to veto a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a settlement in terms of the international consensus, which now included a Palestinian state alongside Israel… [Israel alleged] that the PLO not only backed this peace plan but in fact ‘prepared’ it; the PLO then condemned ‘the tyranny of the veto’ (in the words of the PLO representative) by which the US blocked this important effort to bring about a peaceful two-state settlement.”

The Truth: The draft UN resolution endorsed the PLO’s “Right of Return” for millions of Palestinian Arabs, which entails the dissolution of Israel. The PLO publicly declared that “this Zionist ghetto of Israel must be destroyed” and stressed that “we will not recognize Israel.”

8) The Lie: “In February 1971, [Sadat] offered Israel a full peace treaty on the pre-June 1967 borders, with security guarantees, recognized borders and so on… Sadat’s offer was in line with the international consensus of the period…”

The Truth: Egypt explained its policy as follows: “There are only two specific Arab goals at present: elimination of the consequences of the 1967 aggression through Israel’s withdrawal from all the lands it occupied that year, and elimination of the consequences of the 1948 aggression through the eradication of Israel.”

9) The Lie: “Keeping to the diplomatic record… both sides, of course, rejected [UN Security Council Resolution] 242.”

The Truth: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt accepted the resolution – while disagreeing over interpretation – and began discussions with the UN Special Representative appointed to implement it.

10) The Lie: “Much is made in US propaganda about Israel’s eagerness to make peace after the 1967 war… in August 1967, Yigal Allon had advanced his ‘Allon plan,’ which became official policy a year later… No other Israeli initiatives are known… The terms ‘territorial compromise’ and ‘land for peace’ are used to refer to one or another version of the Allon plan, always rejecting entirely the Palestinian right to self-determination.”

The Truth: In July 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol publicly confirmed Israel’s readiness to establish a Palestinian state. Similar ideas were voiced by Yigal Allon, Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan.252 In January 1976, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin considered another plan for a Palestinian state. This was supported by Golda Meir, Yigal Allon and Ariel Sharon.

You Might Also Like:

Qotes About Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky Lies About War on Terrorism

Noam Chomsky Lies About Terrorist Atrocities

Noam Chomsky Lies About Arab Israeli Wars

Noam Chomsky Lies About America & Israel

10 Noam Chomsky Lies About the War on Terrorism

Paul Bogdanor has compiled a handy list of Noam Chomsky's top 200 lies on topics ranging from Israeli-Arab wars and Communism to Latin America and himself.

I compiled 40 of them that apeaking on the Israeli Arab conflict.

If he tells the truth will he survive?

What is the future for his blind followers?

1) The Lie: It is acceptable to report the collateral damage by bombing error, the inadvertent and inevitable cost of war, but not the conscious and deliberate destruction of Afghans who will die in silence, invisibly not by design, but because it doesn't matter, a deeper level of moral depravity. People do not die of starvation instantly. They can survive on roots and grass, and if malnourished children die of disease, who will seek to determine what factors lie in the background?

The Truth: America had been the largest supplier of food to Afghanistan for a decade and provided two-thirds of food aid after 9/11, saving the country from famine. The UN Global Ambassador on Hunger wrote that there was ion starvation this winter in Afghanistan, thanks to a humanitarian assistance budget wisely provided by the Bush administration. The head of the World Food Program in Kabul said that it was clear that a possible famine had been averted.

2) The Lie: Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that [in Afghanistan]. Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people.

The Truth: Far from killing millions, the American occupation of Afghanistan saved lives. UNICEF figures indicate that the deaths of 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women will be prevented every year as a result.

3) The Lie: The [Afghanistan] war aim announced on October 12, five days after the bombing began, was that the Taliban leadership should hand over to the United States people who [sic] the US suspected of participating in terrorist actions.

The Truth: The war aim, announced by President Bush on the first day of bombing, was to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

4) The Lie: Many who know the conditions well are also dubious about bin Laden's capacity to plan that incredibly sophisticated operation from a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. It's entirely possible that bin Laden telling the truth when he says that he didn't know about the operation.

The Truth: Shortly after 9/11, bin Laden said that he had known of the plan and had used his engineering skills to calculate how much damage the planes would inflict on the World Trade Center. The 9/11 planners, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, said that they executed the death flights with the approval of bin Laden.

5) The Lie: They [i.e., the terrorists] are carrying out enormous atrocities in response to the real atrocities for which were responsible and which continue to this day. It may matter little to us here, and virtually no one in the West cares. But that doesn't imply that it doesn't matter to the victims.

The Truth: They commit enormous atrocities because they are totalitarian fanatics.194 Islamic extremists have committed mass murder in Muslim countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Sudan, and in non-Western countries such as India and the Philippines.

You Might Also Like:

Quotes About Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky Lies About Arab Israeli Peace Process

Noam Chomsky Lies About Terrorist Atrocities

Noam Chomsky Lies About Arab Israeli Wars

Noam Chomsky Lies About America & Israel