FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Chris McClure writes about the Arabic translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, on sale in Cairo:

Originally published in Lebanon in 1963 according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), and reprinted in 1995, Mein Kampf, which is transliterated as Kifahi (and not jihadi as Victor Davis Hanson claims in the National Review Online), is reportedly also widely available in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. The introduction claims that, “This national socialism did not die with the death of the man who proclaimed it: indeed its seeds grew under every star, and the promoters of radical nationalism (qawmiyya) take it up as a weapon with which to combat Third Internationalism and the principles of Karl Marx.”

Marx? Yes, McClure suggests that the writer was a Syrian or Iraqi Ba’athist; the Ba’athism of Saddam and the Assads draws its inspiration from Nazism.

But perhaps many will remember the days in which Arab rejectionism of Israel clothed itself in a Marxist costume. Nasser, Arafat, the Syrians, were all happy to talk about socialism when it meant arms and money from the Soviet Union.

Now everybody’s suddenly become an Islamist, thanks to petrodollars from Iran and Saudi Arabia. The formerly atheistic Arafat got religion (or pretended to) before his death, and even Bashar Assad, whose Ba’athism and Alawite faith should put him far from Islamism, champions the Islamist causes of Hamas (Sunni version) and Hezbollah (Shiite). Of course Assad has a different attitude to Syrian Islamists who would like to replace his regime, but that’s another story.

Can I be excused for thinking that these Arab leaders have only ever had one real ideology, that of maintaining their power, manipulating their subjects and the West, and hating Jews and Israel?

Technorati Tags: Arabs, Israel, Mein Kampf

Some Israelis and some politically sophisticated Jews here in the US have, in a sense, been crushed by the weight of anti-Israel propaganda, and — while it is painful to say this — have become part of the problem. It’s hard to defend yourself when the lies are pouring in from all directions, and sometimes you wake up saying “wait a minute — did I fall for that?”

Daniel Gordis describes this from an Israeli point of view, but it occurs here, too, especially among those who would describe themselves as being concerned with “peace and justice”.

Cynicism is a dangerous disease, a cancer of the soul. Often, we don’t know we have it, until it’s too late, until part of us has died. It’s also contagious. And this country has stage-three cynicism. By cynicism, I don’t mean the occasional snide joke at a cocktail party. I mean a low-grade but constant self-loathing among many of the people I know at the elite of Israel’s intellectual and academic circles, for whom discussion of the Jewish State is more than passé it’s absurd. If you say something about the values inherent in Zionism, you sound odd. If you insist that the Jews have something unique to say and that having a State is our platform on which we can begin to articulate that “something,” they look at you as if you’re “cute.” As if you’d referred to a young dating couple as “courting,” or as if you’d just called a pair of jeans “dungarees.” You’re an anachronism, and no one “in the know” will take you, or your ideas, very seriously.

This self-loathing manifests itself in a relentless discussion of the occupation, with no reference to why the occupation began or to the fact that Israel doesn’t exactly have many sane choices that might end it. You see it when people insist Israel should “just sign a peace agreement already,” with no consideration of what’s unfolding in Gaza, in complete denial of the obvious fact that there’s no way that Abu Mazen can deliver on anything he promises before or during Annapolis. It’s the culture in which post-nationalism is taken as an obvious truth, with no recognition of the fact that it’s only when discussing the state of the Jews that people insist that the nation-state should be dismantled. It’s the conversational style in which every mention of an Israeli soldier has to be followed by an account of some act of barbarity, lest you appear overly nationalistic. — Daniel Gordis, “One Treadmill, Two Refugees, One College” [my emphasis — the entire article is recommended]

On the one hand, it’s important for all of us to be as well-informed as possible, and that means reading and listening to the views of the ‘other side’ and taking them seriously. This is necessary from both a moral and practical point of view.

On the other hand, the messages you receive in the media are carefully calibrated to have an effect. Many of the presenters are professionals, and they know how to bring about a result, to create an opinion in your mind, subtly and almost subliminally.

It’s important for all of us to remain focused on the basic historical facts, which have not changed as a result of post-modern, post-Zionist, post-anything-ism, so that we can resist being pushed into the pit of cyncism that Gordis describes so well, where we will become our own deadly enemies.

The opposition to the existence of Israel and the Jewish people — and that is what it is — is pervasive and well-financed, and has leveraged itself into almost a grass-roots movement in places like the UK and some US campuses. That doesn’t mean that the goal is any different than Hitler’s.

The Jews need to be part of the solution, not part of their problem.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Jews, media, Zionism

Much has been written about Mearsheimer and Walt (see my post “The What and Why of Mearsheimer and Walt“). What strikes me strongly is the contrast between their pretense of scholarship and their polemical anti-Israel bias and disingenuous disregard of truth and logic.

I concluded that such a political tract must have a purpose other than disinterested scholarship, and I am even more convinced of this when I consider the way they have responded to critics. Consider the following example, part of correspondence between the august professors and Maurice Ostroff. I’ve reprinted this in full with permission in order to give it the widest possible distribution.

An open follow-up to correspondence with Professors Mearsheimer and Walt

(Click here for previous correspondence)

From Maurice Ostroff

October 8, 2007

Dear Professors Mearsheimer and Walt,

In response to my letter of May 6, 2006, you replied that you were preparing a lengthy “response to critics” in which you would address many of the issues I had raised. And indeed in December you kindly sent me a copy of your 81-page paper “Setting the record straight”.

While you did address some of the minor criticisms which had been leveled against your published articles on the Israel lobby, I am disappointed that you ignored almost all the points I had raised. As my readers and I are anxious to learn your views on these matters, I would very much appreciate your considered response to the following.

(more…)

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Syrian President Bashar Assad announced on Thursday that his country would not participate in the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis next month, Army Radio reported.

Speaking to Tunisian media, Assad said the conference had no chance of achieving Syria’s goals.

No clearer indication of his intentions could have been given. While dictator Assad would not be averse to taking possession of the Golan, there are reasons that he prefers to keep the conflict with Israel boiling. As I wrote yesterday,

Syria could have had the Golan heights in return for a peace agreement at multiple times since 1999. They have never chosen this path, because the continued conflict with Israel has more important to the Assad regimes (first Hafez and now his son Bashar) as a tool to keep internal reformers at bay and maintain influence over Lebanon than possession of the Golan (see Lee Harris’ review of Barry Rubin’s “The Truth About Syria” for an in-depth discussion of Syrian motives).

In the framework of a Mideast summit as is being organized by the US, it is likely that issues relating to Syrian interference in Lebanon and Iraq would come up, both isssues that Assad wishes to avoid.

Assad would prefer to continue to threaten war with Israel, rattle his chemical-warhead tipped missiles, supply Hezbollah and Hamas, and support Iraqi insurgents — all the while repressing dissent at home.

What are “Syria’s goals” that Assad thinks could not be met by attending the summit? Actually, the goals in question are not really Syria’s, they are Bashar Assad’s. Peace with Israel could be a boost to Syria’s economy and could open the door to much-needed political and economic reforms.

Assad, on the other hand, cares little about the economic well-being of Syrians — in fact, he prefers a poor economy in order to keep middle-class merchants, his reformist opposition, at bay. What is important to him is staying in power, maintaining influence in Lebanon, and continuing to receive weapons and aid from Iran for his ‘work’ with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency.

From Israel’s point of view, Assad’s non-participation may be a good thing. Since it appears that he is implacably hostile, better to face him with the IDF in the Golan Heights than not.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Israel

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) has strongly criticized both Hamas and Fatah over the mini-civil war in the Gaza Strip, citing

…serious violations of the provisions of international law concerning internal armed conflicts, including violations of the right to life and physical integrity perpetrated by the two movements. These violations included extra-judicial and willful killings; disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians; abduction and torture of persons; attacks against civilian facilities, including houses and apartment buildings; shooting at peaceful demonstrations; attacks against hospitals and medical and civil defense crews; seizure, robbery and destruction of public and private institutions.

The report also criticizes the Palestinian Authority for not establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate these events.

At the time, I commented on the moral outrage and shame expressed by Palestinians, as compared to the lack of similar expressions when Palestinian terrorists have murdered Jews. For example, contrast this

Political analyst Ikrimah Thabet said: “…the bloody events have caused enormous damage to the reputation of the Palestinians, especially in light of the filthy and painful violence that has claimed the lives of children, activists, leaders and innocent civilians.” — Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post

With this

In the current interview [in “Al-Sharq al-Awsat”] as in earlier interviews Abu-Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has been very consistent on several points. The Intifada is legitimate and is part of the resistance to occupation, and it should continue; he supports attacking soldiers and settlers at any time; he opposes attacks on Israeli civilians inside Israel at this time because it is against Palestinian interests. — Michael Widlanski, Ha’aretz (Hebrew, my tr.) [2004]

This point of view — that terrorism against Jews or Israelis is bad only because it is presently ‘counterproductive’ — apparently characterizes the ‘moderate’ wing of the Palestinian movement and is one of the things that makes them ‘moderate’ (the other is that they do not want to replace all of Israel with an Arab state today, but will accept one in the territories as an intermediate step in the process).

Is it possible to accept the Palestinian narrative in which the current situation represents a denial of Palestinian rights without also justifying (or even ‘understanding’) terrorism? Palestinian-American journalist (and comedian!) Ray Hanania seems to be able to do it:

Once again, Palestinians are faced with a difficult choice. Do they continue to embrace 60-year old principles and demand the impossible - to return to land of the pre-1948 years? Or do they wake up and recognize that their only real chance for peace and a Palestinian state is to accept their own failures? The brutal truth is that Israel’s existence - which Palestinians reject - has much to do with their own failed policies and their own extremist acts.

More importantly, are Palestinians finally willing to stop lying to the Palestinian refugees and to their descendants - to acknowledge the truth that even though the Palestinians may have a legal right under international law to return to their lands taken in 1948, 60 years of continued conflict and failed Arab leadership has made the enforcement of that dream unrealistic?

What is important here is that for once, he places responsibility for the situation of the Palestinians where it belongs — on the policies of the Arab nations, and on their own choice of terrorism as a tactic. We are not going to make a Zionist out of this guy, but possibly we could talk to him.

Unfortunately, he lives in Chicago, not Ramallah.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Abbas, Hanania

Just so that nobody thinks that they are not still trying to kill Israelis, Hamas is keeping up its rocket and mortar barrage of southern Israel, and has reached a milestone of sorts:

Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have fired 1000 mortar rounds and rockets towards Israel since Hamas took power four months ago, Israeli security officials said Wednesday.

A military official told Ynet that “Hamas-sponsored terror groups are trying to maintain a constant level of terror activity against Israel.

The IDF estimates that approximately 350 Qassam rockets and 650 mortar rounds have been launched at Israel since then.

Most of these were directed at Israeli territory although some were fired at IDF forces operating inside Gaza.

These numbers only represent launches that have been identified and recorded, so the actual number of attacks is likely to be much higher.
– YNet

Many of these have landed harmlessly in open areas, some have simply caused panic and destroyed property, and others have seriously injured and killed people.

Meanwhile, the official Palestinian Authority [PA] of Mahmoud Abbas is making demands for the amount of territory that it expects to receive as a result of the coming Mideast Summit to be held in Annapolis MD on November 26:

In a joint declaration, [Palestinian negotiator Ahmed] Qureia said, it would be enough to declare the 1967 lines as the starting point, say the border is open to modifications, based on the principle that the Palestinians end up with as much land as they lost in 1967. The exact border would be worked out in negotiations following the Annapolis conference. Part of the deal would likely be a land corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza, separated by 40 kilometers of Israeli territory, but other swap proposals have not been raised. — Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

I would like to point out that the Palestinians didn’t ‘lose’ anything in 1967, because they didn’t have anything. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 war, as a result of the aggressive war started by the Arab nations in 1948. The Palestinians didn’t seem to have a big problem with that ‘occupation’, since the occupiers were Arabs, but never mind.

Suppose there is a deal with the West Bank branch of the PA in which large amounts of territory are transferred to Palestinian control, Jerusalem is divided, control of the Temple Mount is given to Jordan or an international body, there is a ‘corridor’ dividing Israel in two, etc.

Then my question is this: what is to prevent the Abbas faction and the Hamas faction from reconciling and rediscovering their shared interests (what these are can left as an exercise for the reader)?

What will happen to all of those Hamas rocket scientists when “peace” has been achieved and there is a corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank?

Indeed, what will happen when the Hamas elements gain control of the PA?

What will happen when, in accordance with the “peace” agreement, the IDF does not have freedom of action in the West Bank? Imagine a mortar attack on the Ben Gurion airport, or Katyushas landing in Tel Aviv.

It seems to me that instead of finding creative formulas for saying that the Palestinians really own Israel’s home while not letting them move in, the Israeli government should insist that the Palestinians first find a solution to their terrorism problem, before any territory is transferred.

There is really no point to continue in the present direction while under fire, because — unless Hamas is dealt with — the security situation can only get worse.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Hamas

The anti-Israel ‘realists’ are at it again, this time with a letter to President Bush, which will be released later today, that will call for engagement with Hamas and a tilt towards Syria in an attempt to ’solve’ the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Signers include former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and US Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former House International Relations Committee Chairman Lee Hamilton, former Counselor to President Kennedy Theodore Sorensen, and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.

In the letter to Bush, beyond calling on the US and the parties to focus on the outlines of a final status settlement, the co-signatories defy the administration’s views by calling for an end to the policy of isolating Hamas and for a shift in policy toward Syria — including both US/Syria engagement and renewal of Syrian/Israeli negotiations. — Steven Clemons, The Washington Note

Both of these policies would be disastrous for Israel, and for any moderate elements among the Palestinians (if there are any left).

Hamas could have ended its isolation (in other words, gotten huge amounts of financial aid from the West and become part — and ultimately the controlling part, of the official Palestinian Authority) simply by accepting Israel’s right to exist, renouncing terrorism, and accepting prior agreements between Israel and the PA. Note that this formula says nothing about the borders of Israel, Palestinian refugees, etc. But they have never been prepared to do this, preferring an outlaw existence funded by Iran and radical elements in the Muslim world which permits them to maintain their rejectionist stance toward Israel and their genocidal position about Jews.

Granting them recognition legitimizes this position and provides yet more evidence that terrorism is the best path to political legitimacy. It also strengthens Iranian influence in the region.

Syria could have had the Golan heights in return for a peace agreement at multiple times since 1999. They have never chosen this path, because the continued conflict with Israel has more important to the Assad regimes (first Hafez and now his son Bashar) as a tool to keep internal reformers at bay and maintain influence over Lebanon than possession of the Golan (see Lee Harris’ review of Barry Rubin’s “The Truth About Syria” for an in-depth discussion of Syrian motives).

Syria today is working with Iran to support Hamas and Hezbollah, helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, threatening war with Israel over the Golan (which Israel would give her in return for a peace treaty), and murdering anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians. They also have a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, and are apparently trying to obtain nuclear material from North Korea. Should American policy become more or less pro-Syrian?

Ami Isseroff writes,

The people who participated in this letter are either fools or knaves [they are knaves — ed.]. A few may be so clueless that they don’t really understand what Hamas is all about, and think that Hamas can be “converted” into a peaceful movement. Likewise, they believe Bashar Assad is just another politician taking care of business. The rest are “realists” who would have no compunction about assisting in the elimination of Israel, which they believe is an “unviable client state” and a foreign policy liability. In Machiavellian calculations of realpolitik, considerations of morality and sentiment are irrelevant.

Some of these knaves are influential people. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor, is the foreign policy advisor to presidential hopeful Barak Obama.

This is a really bad idea which needs to die quietly.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Syria, Israel, Scowcroft, Brzezinski

Secret negotiations regarding a ‘peace’ agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (as represented by Mahmoud Abbas) are continuing, and so are leaks about what is being offered. Jerusalem will somehow be divided, much of the West Bank will come under Palestinian control, and something — no-one knows for sure what — will be done in regard to the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

The problem is that Abbas has absolutely no ability to deliver anything in return from the Palestinians, and even less from the other parties in the conflict. Even if he wanted to, which is in dispute, he cannot prevent terrorism from areas which are not under IDF control, and he cannot prevent a Hamas takeover there either.

So while opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu can list all of the likely consequences of the planned concessions, nobody can tell us how Abbas or anyone else can guarantee — or even make likely — any kind of peace afterwards.

Indeed, based on Palestinian reactions to previous concessions, we can expect the opposite.

In addition, supposing that such a deal is made, will Iran agree that Israel can be allowed to exist? Will Hezbollah stop preparing for another rocket war? Will Syria stand down her chemical-warhead tipped missiles? Will Hamas stop its arms smuggling, rocket firing, and war preparations?

A peace agreement would be a two-sided deal, with both sides making concessions and some kind of guarantee that there would be peace. What is being talked about is something different entirely:

A surrender agreement.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Netanyahu

A Katyusha rocket has landed in Netivot, near the Gaza strip:

The rocket, one of four to land in the western Negev, was the first to land in the Netivot area since Palestinian terrorists started firing rockets at Israel.

Defense officials said that the rocket was Russian-made and had a range of 20 kilometers.

No one was wounded and no damage was reported as a result of the rocket barrage.

Netivot Mayor Yehiel Zohar said that his request to fortify the town’s education institutions was turned down since Netivot is located 11 kilometers from the Gaza Strip - one kilometer outside the area that qualifies for fortification. — Jerusalem Post

Netivot is a small town. The city of Ashkelon (population 117,000), however, is even closer to the Gaza strip, and has a port and industrial installations. Some Qassams have already struck it, but so far have not done too much damage. Katyushas, with longer range, better accuracy, and larger payloads, would be another story.

I assume they are being smuggled in via the arms superhighway under the Egyptian border. There will come a point that Israel will be forced to take action. I hope it won’t have to be prompted by a major casualty event.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Katyusha, Netivot, Ashkelon

It’s hard to understand this as anything other than a threat:

The passage of a resolution in the US Congress supporting Armenian claims of genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire will irreparably damage the image of the United States and make the Jewish population a target of criticism in Turkey, Foreign Minister and Chief EU Negotiator Ali Babacan has said…

An influential US Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), recently reversed its longtime position and declared killings of Armenians in eastern Anatolia during the World War I years to be genocide. The ADL says it [still] remains opposed to the Congress [sic] resolution because history should be left to historians and not politicians…

Babacan said if the resolution is passed in Congress, the Jewish population will inevitably be the target of public anger in Turkey. He said Turkish officials have told the ADL and other US Jewish groups in recent talks that the widespread perception in Turkey would be that “Armenian and Jewish lobbies unite forces against Turks.” He said: “We have told them that we cannot explain it to the public in Turkey if a road accident happens. We have told them that we cannot keep the Jewish people out of this.” — Today’s Zaman [Turkish English-language newspaper] [my emphasis]

The ADL had originally refused to say that genocide had taken place. But many Jews believe strongly that the Armenian Genocide is a matter of historical fact, and that it is morally unacceptable for Jews, of all people, to deny it. The ADL, under pressure from Jews, Armenians, and even its own employees, finally did backtrack to some extent, although its statement was far from unequivocal.

It seemed to me at the time that the ADL — although its position on the Genocide was wrong — was motivated by fear of the consequences for Turkish Jews.

Now the Turkish Foreign Minister has hinted that the Jews would suffer if the resolution is passed, and he suggests that the Turkish government would be powerless to prevent an antisemitic reaction by the Turkish public in that case!

This is complicated also by the pressure that Turkey is expected to apply via Israel:

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan is scheduled to arrive in Israel on Sunday following a brief visit to Damascus. High on his agenda in Jerusalem will be Israel’s air strike on Syria last month and the American Jewish community’s stand on whether the World War I killing of Armenians constituted genocide…

Turkish media reports have said Babacan is expected to play a mediating role between Syria and Israel. If so, he has his work cut out for him, as A-Baath, the official newspaper of President Bashar Assad’s government, warned Saturday that Syria would not hesitate to start a war with Israel to restore its control over the Golan Heights…

Alongside Syria, Babacan is expected to talk with his Israeli interlocutors about legislation that will come before the US House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday that would declare the World War I era killings of Armenians a genocide. — Jerusalem Post

I presume that Babacan intends to explain to the Israelis how Israeli interests will suffer as a result of the behavior of the ADL, which the Turks — who understand nothing about Jews, the US, or democracy — incorrectly believe to be an agent of the Israeli government.

The ADL will not make another about-face. American Jews massively support the genocide resolution and will not change their position. I would like to believe that the Turks will not behave as antisemitic bullies.

Update [10 Oct 2153 PDT]: The House Foreign Relations Committee has voted to approve the resolution. If it is passed by the full House, it is expected to cause serious strains in the relationship between the US and Turkey.

Technorati Tags: Turkey, Israel, Jews, Armenian Genocide, ADL, Babacan

If you want an honest statement of the Palestinian position free of the usual posturing, look no further:

In a letter to [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas, Salman Abu Sitta, a prominent spokesman for Palestinian refugees, wrote: “We are aware of the pressure you are facing to abandon the Palestinian position and endorse Israel’s vision. But what has drawn our attention more than anything else is Israel’s attempt to redefine the idea of the two-state solution. Israel now wants mutual recognition - Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and, on what’s left of the land, Palestine as the national homeland of the Palestinians.”

Abu Sitta described the Israeli formula as “extremely dangerous,” saying it should be rejected by all Arabs. He said accepting this formula would be tantamount to abandoning the Arab right to Palestine and accepting the Jews’ ostensible historical and biblical rights to the land.

In addition, Abu Sitta argued, the Israeli stance abolishes the right of return for Palestinians on two levels: recognition of this right and its fulfillment.

“This would constitute a historic burden; no Palestinian could bear its consequences in front of his people and history,” he cautioned. He said it was inconceivable that the Palestinians would abandon the right of return after decades of fighting. — Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

And all this time, proponents of a two-state solution have been arguing that the problem is that the correct formula for compromise hasn’t been found yet. They suggest that the Clinton-Barak proposals failed because Israel did not offer enough or because Arafat wasn’t ready for peace.

The real problem is that Israelis and Americans have never really paid attention to what Palestinians say, or have never believed that they actually meant it.

The Palestinians believe a false version of history. They are wrong about the connection of the Jews to the land, they are wrong about the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and they are especially wrong about their understanding of the events of 1948.

In addition to being mistaken about what actually happened, they are totally blind to their own agency in bringing about their situation. They don’t take responsibility for the actions of al-Husseini (the Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem), Yasser Arafat, Hamas, or any number of murderers and terrorists.

But never mind, this is the version of reality that they believe, with the passion that only a truly miserable people can muster. And this misery has been carefully nurtured over the years by the Arab nations, the UNRWA which was created just for this purpose (and mostly paid for by the US), and the sympathetic international Left which has adopted their cause.

So they have never been, and are not now, willing to accept a compromise solution that leaves room for a Jewish state.

But this should not be Israel’s problem. Why should Israel have to pay for the perfidy of the British and French, the stupidity of al-Husseini, the evil and corruption of Arafat, the grandiose plans of Nasser, the machinations of the Assads, and the fact that the Palestinians have been lied to so thoroughly by themselves and others?

The responsibility for solving the problems of the descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948 should fall on those who really created and perpetuated the problem. Since the UN has entire departments and ‘divisions’ dedicated to Palestinian rights, since it has had several ‘human rights’ bodies that dealt with little else, maybe it could come up with an answer.

Such a solution would involve the abolition of UNRWA, compensation for the treatment these people have received from their ‘host’ nations since 1948, education and job-training programs, and finally resettlement in the host nations or ‘Palestine’ if such an entity is ultimately created — which of course will ultimately be up to the Palestinians themselves.

Technorati Tags: Palestinians, Israel

Mubarak:

“Israel hasn’t learned the lessons of the Yom Kippur War and it prefers to solve its problems by force rather than by peaceful means” — Jerusalem Post

Of course the lessons of the Yom Kippur War are exactly the opposite. After the 1967 war Israel wanted to ’solve its problems’ peacefully, but the Arabs responded with the “Three No’s” (no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it).

Forty years on, there have been negotiations with a few Arab countries, and some form of recognition from even fewer. If true peace is to be distinguished from a US-paid-for cease-fire, then Israel has peace with just one Arab country, Jordan. So lesson one was that the Arabs, mostly, are not interested in peace.

Lesson two is that the Arab states will attack Israel if they think they will succeed. So permanent military preparedness and good intelligence are essential for survival.

And lesson three is this: if Egypt is building up her army and buying tanks and planes, it’s not for directing traffic in Cairo.

Technorati Tags: Mubarak, Israel, Egypt