users online counter
Interesting
Prime Minister Netanyahu is being pressured from all sides, and especially the Obama Administration, to restart peace talks and give up Judea and Samaria for a Palestinian state. The pleas come shrouded in willful ignorance that there is no true Arab Palestinian people, and the Arabs making the demands are less interested in land and peace than they are that Israel has no right to exist.  Let’s get real. These four facts lend clarity to what is clouded by politics and emotion.
Fact 1: There is no such thing as an Arab “Palestinian.” Before Israel’s statehood in 1948, the name “Palestinian” meant a Jewish person living in that land, not an Arab. The word Palestinian became associated with Arabs only later, when Yasser Arafat artificially created a new so-called nation of Arab “Palestinians,” many of whom came from and have direct relatives in neighboring countries, such as Jordan or Egypt. By 1948 enough Jewish people had returned to the land to establish the modern Jewish state of Israel. So all the world should know that there never was a “Palestinian Arab” state, nor even a “Palestinian Arab” people. They should know that all the Arabs living in the Israeli territories came from neighboring Arab states. 
Fact 2: There is no opportunity for peace without Israel’s recognized right to exist. Israel has offered at least three times some 97 percent of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to the Arabs, and each time the Arabs have refused. Netanyahu concludes that the Israeli-Arab conflict is not about real estate, but rather about the explicit right of a Jewish state to exist. “It is over our existence in any borders whatsoever,” he stressed. 
Fact 3: Jewish settlers have greatly improved their traditional land of Judea and Samaria. Arabs claim that the Jews have stolen their land when in reality the Jewish people who have built beautiful homes and thriving communities in the areas known as Judea and Samaria have simply rebuilt the towns and villages of their forefathers. The international community also calls these settlers, “occupiers,” and charges them with being obstacles to peace by seizing land that belongs to the so-called “Palestinian Arabs.” They obviously blind themselves to the fact that there never was a “Palestinian Arab” state on that land. The original idea of a “Palestinian Arab” state only arose in 1993 with the Oslo Accords.  Prior to that the land was basically undeveloped swamp land until Jewish people started returning to the land around 1900 in the Zionist movement.
Fact 4: True and lasting peace between Israel and the Arabs is unachievable until the Arabs agree to become a legitimate partner for peace. Netanyahu has pointed to the hostile rhetoric of Hamas, coupled with “Palestinian Arab” leader Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reconcile with the terrorist group, as the primary reason that such peace is simply not possible. Last summer in Gaza Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal spoke to thousands of Gazans declaring that “Palestine is our land and nation, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, from the north to the south, and we will not cede one inch of it.” He went on to insist that political, diplomatic and legal efforts to achieve control of the land “must be coupled with violence.” He stressed that all non-violent methods are “senseless.”
Clearly those calling themselves “Arab Palestinians” want to take and take but are unwilling to give.  Without a rational, realistic and fair peace partner, any rational mind should understand there is no hope for a successful and peaceful two-state solution which makes continued peace talks simply a “senseless” waste of time.

Israel Uncensored's pictureEarl Cox is an international broadcaster and journalist who has served in senior level positions with four US presidents. Due to his outspoken support for Israel, he has been recognized by Prime Minister Netanyahu as a Good Will Ambassador from Israel to the Jewish and Christian communities around the world and named the Voice of Israel to America by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

לא יסתפקו ב-67’. מאת שאול רוזנפלד
כמדי 15 במאי נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהודים “עשו לאבותיהם”. נראה שתאבונם של רבים מהם אינו עוצר בגבולות 1967
“זה מצב אבסורד שאין כמותו בעולם, שבזמן שנעקרו ערבים מאדמותיהם מעלים יהודים במקומם בהפלגות מכל העולם”, אמר ח”כ אחמד טיבי ב”יום הנכבה” בשנה שעברה, ולו רק כדי ללמדנו עד כמה לצנינים היא בעיניו עליית היהודים ארצה, עצמאותם ומדינתם, שלידתה לטעמו הייתה ועודנה כרוכה בחטא הגירוש, העקירה, הנישול וההגליה של ערביה.
 ייתכן מאוד שלא תמיד הטון עושה את המוסיקה, וטיבי כעמיתו ג’מאל זחאלקה, שבשבתו באולפן שידור ברמת אביב לפני כמה שנים הסביר למארחו דן מרגלית כי הם יושבים למעשה בשייח’ מוניס, והוא, מרגלית, שנולד בתל אביב ב-1938 אינו יותר ממהגר במדינה - חרגו קמעה בסגנונם הבוטה מהקו הרטורי המקובל משכבר הימים על הנהגת ערביי ישראל.
ואולם מבחינה מהותית קצת קשה לאתר הבדלים של ממש בין דברי הח”כים מכנסת ישראל לקביעתם של “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב העליונה של ערביי ישראל” ו”ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות”, כי “ישראל היא תוצאה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית, שיזמו האליטות היהודיות-ציוניות באירופה ובמערב” (כפי שהדבר כתוב במפורש במסמכי החזון של ערביי ישראל) - כשכל בר דעת אמור להבין מה ראוי שיעלה בגורלה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית משוקצת שכזו.
 המהדורה השנייה של “יום הנכבה”, המצוין היום ב-15 במאי, כבר שמורה בעיקר לאחיהם הפלסטינים של טיבי וזחאלקה, שיותר משמבכים הם את האסון שנפל על ראשם ב-48’, כידוע על לא עוול בכפם, הם מקוננים על כישלונם של צבאות מצרים, סוריה, ירדן, לבנון ועיראק, שפלשו לארץ ב-15 במאי 48’, בביצוע התשליך המכובד של היהודים ובביטולה באחת של מדינת היהודים בת היממה.
 מתוקף לקורבן
אז, כשזממם של ערביי ארץ ישראל ומדינות ערב על מיגור “היישות הציונית” במלחמת השמד וטבח (כדברי מזכ”ל הליגה הערבית דאז, עבדל אל-רחמן עזאם, ב-14 במאי 48’) לא עלה בידיהם, ומעשיהם לא רק שלא קירבו אותם לתכלית המיוחלת, אלא הרחיקו אותם ממנה ואת חלקם אף מבתיהם - החלה להירקם תוכנית הקונברסיה. אותה תוכנית המרה שבה התוקפן, שזממו לא צלח, הופך את עורו בן-לילה לקורבן זך ותמים, שמעולם, כידוע, לא חרש רוע וזדון; והציונים, שבחוצפתם כי רבה לא ששו אז להניח את צווארם לפני המאכלת, נהפכים באחת ל”ישות כובשת, חומסת ומגרשת”.
 ברוח ההתְקַרְבְּנוּת המופלאה הזאת, ותוך שהם מצטיידים ב”מפתחות בתיהם” מ-48’ ובנאומי תוכחה של “אנחנו מאשימים”, נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל מדי שנה ביום העצמאות וב-15 במאי, כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהוד “עשה לאבותינו ולנו”, ולא פחות מכך - להשיח על ההכרח שבהשבת הגזלה לבעליה ובהחזרת הפליטים לבתיהם. מההתכנסויות, התהלוכות והעצרות הללו לא נפקד חלילה גם מקומם של יהודים טובים, שנפשם הדוויה אינה יודעת מנוח והם אינם יודעים לאן להוליך את “הבושה”, ובדומה לאחיהם הפלסטינים, בישראל ומחוצה לה, הם יודעים גם יודעים איך ראוי לתקן “עוולות ציוניות”, במיוחד כמו זו של הנכבה, למשל במימוש אמיץ של סעיף 11 של החלטה 194 של העצרת הכללית של האו”ם בדבר השבת הפליטים לבתיהם.
 אמנם לא כל ההנהגה הערבית החזיקה אחרי דבריו של חאג’ אמין אל חוסייני כי “הרוג ביהודים באשר הם, זה ירצה את אלוהים, ההיסטוריה והדת”, אך היא הקפידה הקפד היטב לדחות מכל וכל כל תוכנית ליישוב צנוע ומצומצם של היהודים, ולו על מקצת מהשטח שהובטח להם בהצהרת בלפור - בין אם הייתה זו תוכניתה של ועדת פיל מ-1937, בין אם את תוכנית החלוקה השנייה של האו”ם מ-1947 ובין אם היו אלה הצעות אחרות.
פאיז צאיע, אחמד בהא א-דין, נאג’י עלוש, עבד א-לטיף שרארה וקונסטנטין זורייק הם רק אפס קצהו של שובל אינטלקטואלים ערבים מן העבר שביצרו את הקונסנסוס, הפלסטיני בפרט והערבי בכלל, שהיהודים הם עדה דתית ותו לא, וש”מדינת לאום יהודית” היא צירוף מופרך מיסודו - ולפיכך מדינת ישראל כמות שהיא ראוי לה שתעבור מן העולם. חזונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, חנין זועבי, “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב”, “ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות” או אבו מאזן אינו שונה כמלוא הנימה מאותה רוח השורה על מיטב בניו של העולם הערבי שמסביבנו.
 עתה, כשמתגברים מחדש הקולות הקוראים לחידוש המשא-ומתן בין ישראל לפלסטינים, ראוי אולי לחזור
 ולהיזכר מהן דרישותיו ומטרותיו האמיתיות של הצד השני, מה עלה בגורלן של הצעותיהם מרחיקות הלכת לפלסטינים של ברק בקמפ דייוויד ב-2000 ובטאבה ב-2001 ושל אולמרט באנאפוליס ב-2007, ומה נדרשת ישראל לעשות לטעמם לשם תיקונה של “עוולת הנכבה שעוללה”.
 למקפידים שבקרבנו לשמר את אמונתם היוקדת כי השלום הוא בהישג יד, תהליך ההיזכרות קרוב לוודאי שלא יועיל במיוחד, אך למרבית המפוכחים שבינינו, שהתרבו עד מאוד מאז אופוריית אוסלו ב-93’ ועד עתה, תזכורת זאת היא באחת גם ההכרה המחודשת כי תאבונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, אבו מאזן ושות’ אינו נעצר בגבולות 67’.

לא יסתפקו ב-67’. מאת שאול רוזנפלד

כמדי 15 במאי נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהודים “עשו לאבותיהם”. נראה שתאבונם של רבים מהם אינו עוצר בגבולות 1967

“זה מצב אבסורד שאין כמותו בעולם, שבזמן שנעקרו ערבים מאדמותיהם מעלים יהודים במקומם בהפלגות מכל העולם”, אמר ח”כ אחמד טיבי ב”יום הנכבה” בשנה שעברה, ולו רק כדי ללמדנו עד כמה לצנינים היא בעיניו עליית היהודים ארצה, עצמאותם ומדינתם, שלידתה לטעמו הייתה ועודנה כרוכה בחטא הגירוש, העקירה, הנישול וההגליה של ערביה.

 ייתכן מאוד שלא תמיד הטון עושה את המוסיקה, וטיבי כעמיתו ג’מאל זחאלקה, שבשבתו באולפן שידור ברמת אביב לפני כמה שנים הסביר למארחו דן מרגלית כי הם יושבים למעשה בשייח’ מוניס, והוא, מרגלית, שנולד בתל אביב ב-1938 אינו יותר ממהגר במדינה - חרגו קמעה בסגנונם הבוטה מהקו הרטורי המקובל משכבר הימים על הנהגת ערביי ישראל.

ואולם מבחינה מהותית קצת קשה לאתר הבדלים של ממש בין דברי הח”כים מכנסת ישראל לקביעתם של “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב העליונה של ערביי ישראל” ו”ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות”, כי “ישראל היא תוצאה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית, שיזמו האליטות היהודיות-ציוניות באירופה ובמערב” (כפי שהדבר כתוב במפורש במסמכי החזון של ערביי ישראל) - כשכל בר דעת אמור להבין מה ראוי שיעלה בגורלה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית משוקצת שכזו.

 המהדורה השנייה של “יום הנכבה”, המצוין היום ב-15 במאי, כבר שמורה בעיקר לאחיהם הפלסטינים של טיבי וזחאלקה, שיותר משמבכים הם את האסון שנפל על ראשם ב-48’, כידוע על לא עוול בכפם, הם מקוננים על כישלונם של צבאות מצרים, סוריה, ירדן, לבנון ועיראק, שפלשו לארץ ב-15 במאי 48’, בביצוע התשליך המכובד של היהודים ובביטולה באחת של מדינת היהודים בת היממה.

 מתוקף לקורבן

אז, כשזממם של ערביי ארץ ישראל ומדינות ערב על מיגור “היישות הציונית” במלחמת השמד וטבח (כדברי מזכ”ל הליגה הערבית דאז, עבדל אל-רחמן עזאם, ב-14 במאי 48’) לא עלה בידיהם, ומעשיהם לא רק שלא קירבו אותם לתכלית המיוחלת, אלא הרחיקו אותם ממנה ואת חלקם אף מבתיהם - החלה להירקם תוכנית הקונברסיה. אותה תוכנית המרה שבה התוקפן, שזממו לא צלח, הופך את עורו בן-לילה לקורבן זך ותמים, שמעולם, כידוע, לא חרש רוע וזדון; והציונים, שבחוצפתם כי רבה לא ששו אז להניח את צווארם לפני המאכלת, נהפכים באחת ל”ישות כובשת, חומסת ומגרשת”.

 ברוח ההתְקַרְבְּנוּת המופלאה הזאת, ותוך שהם מצטיידים ב”מפתחות בתיהם” מ-48’ ובנאומי תוכחה של “אנחנו מאשימים”, נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל מדי שנה ביום העצמאות וב-15 במאי, כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהוד “עשה לאבותינו ולנו”, ולא פחות מכך - להשיח על ההכרח שבהשבת הגזלה לבעליה ובהחזרת הפליטים לבתיהם. מההתכנסויות, התהלוכות והעצרות הללו לא נפקד חלילה גם מקומם של יהודים טובים, שנפשם הדוויה אינה יודעת מנוח והם אינם יודעים לאן להוליך את “הבושה”, ובדומה לאחיהם הפלסטינים, בישראל ומחוצה לה, הם יודעים גם יודעים איך ראוי לתקן “עוולות ציוניות”, במיוחד כמו זו של הנכבה, למשל במימוש אמיץ של סעיף 11 של החלטה 194 של העצרת הכללית של האו”ם בדבר השבת הפליטים לבתיהם.

 אמנם לא כל ההנהגה הערבית החזיקה אחרי דבריו של חאג’ אמין אל חוסייני כי “הרוג ביהודים באשר הם, זה ירצה את אלוהים, ההיסטוריה והדת”, אך היא הקפידה הקפד היטב לדחות מכל וכל כל תוכנית ליישוב צנוע ומצומצם של היהודים, ולו על מקצת מהשטח שהובטח להם בהצהרת בלפור - בין אם הייתה זו תוכניתה של ועדת פיל מ-1937, בין אם את תוכנית החלוקה השנייה של האו”ם מ-1947 ובין אם היו אלה הצעות אחרות.

פאיז צאיע, אחמד בהא א-דין, נאג’י עלוש, עבד א-לטיף שרארה וקונסטנטין זורייק הם רק אפס קצהו של שובל אינטלקטואלים ערבים מן העבר שביצרו את הקונסנסוס, הפלסטיני בפרט והערבי בכלל, שהיהודים הם עדה דתית ותו לא, וש”מדינת לאום יהודית” היא צירוף מופרך מיסודו - ולפיכך מדינת ישראל כמות שהיא ראוי לה שתעבור מן העולם. חזונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, חנין זועבי, “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב”, “ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות” או אבו מאזן אינו שונה כמלוא הנימה מאותה רוח השורה על מיטב בניו של העולם הערבי שמסביבנו.

 עתה, כשמתגברים מחדש הקולות הקוראים לחידוש המשא-ומתן בין ישראל לפלסטינים, ראוי אולי לחזור

 ולהיזכר מהן דרישותיו ומטרותיו האמיתיות של הצד השני, מה עלה בגורלן של הצעותיהם מרחיקות הלכת לפלסטינים של ברק בקמפ דייוויד ב-2000 ובטאבה ב-2001 ושל אולמרט באנאפוליס ב-2007, ומה נדרשת ישראל לעשות לטעמם לשם תיקונה של “עוולת הנכבה שעוללה”.

 למקפידים שבקרבנו לשמר את אמונתם היוקדת כי השלום הוא בהישג יד, תהליך ההיזכרות קרוב לוודאי שלא יועיל במיוחד, אך למרבית המפוכחים שבינינו, שהתרבו עד מאוד מאז אופוריית אוסלו ב-93’ ועד עתה, תזכורת זאת היא באחת גם ההכרה המחודשת כי תאבונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, אבו מאזן ושות’ אינו נעצר בגבולות 67’.

Oldie: Passover (as reported by the NY Times)

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,” complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN.  ”I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians.
Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”

While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim.  ”If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery.  We just want to live plague-free.  It is the right of every society.”

Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is justifiable given the Jews’ superior weaponry supplied to them by the superpower God.

The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish offensive.  ”The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest of the world,” stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac.

Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded himself within Pharaoh’s chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery.

“The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy,” Mr. Shapiro laments.  ”The Egyptians are really a very nice people and Pharaoh is kind of huggable once you get to know him,” gushes Shapiro.

The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the latest offensive.

“Pharaoh is not in complete control of the taskmasters,” Mr. Boucher states.  ”The Jews must return to the negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues.”

The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi peace overture.  If only the Jews will give up their language, change their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah declared.

Actually, he pretended that they have already done that. He spent his time hectoring the only side that really wants peace as if it were the only obstacle to that peace, and called upon it to take steps that would seriously imperil its survival. “Obama tells Israel: ‘Peace is the only path to true security,’” by Stephanie Condon for CBS News, March 21:

Speaking before a lively and receptive crowd of 600 Israeli students, President Obama today urged the youth of Israel to accept “the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” A two-state solution, the president suggested, is the only viable path forward for Israel, given the political and technological changes underway.

“Peace is necessary. I believe that,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at the Jerusalem International Convention Center on his second day in Israel. “I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future.”

Yes, creating a new base for jihad attacks against Israel will certainly secure the Zionist dream.

With the fast-moving developments in the Middle East sparked by the Arab Spring and the spread of democratizing technology, Mr. Obama said, “This is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve and commitment for peace.”

That “wave of revolution” brought to power governments that are unanimously and indefatigably hostile to Israel. So apparently Obama wants Israel to respond to this new threat not by preparing itself for a war that appears to be inevitable, but by pretending that the developments are positive and doing nothing to protect itself.

“Peace must be made among peoples, not just governments,” he continued. “No one step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions…. But progress with the Palestinians is a powerful way to begin, while sidelining extremists who thrive on conflict and division.”

Mr. Obama noted that, given the strong support for Israel in the U.S., it would be easy for him to put aside the idea of pursuing a two-state solution. However, he added, “It is important to be open and honest, especially with your friends.”

“Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine,” Mr. Obama said, prompting cheers from the young audience.

Mr. Obama hailed Israel’s thriving economy and robust democracy, remarking on the robust debate that young Israelis engage in. He even found the silver lining when a heckler in the crowd began yelling in Hebrew for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

“This is part of the lively debate that we talked about — this is good,” he said, bringing the audience to give him a standing ovation. He joked, “I have to say we arranged for that because it actually made me at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler.”

Mr. Obama said that while he backs a two-state solution, “the only path to peace is through negotiation… That is why, despite the criticism we’ve received, the United States will oppose unilateral efforts to bypass negotiations through the United Nations.”

He also said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. Still, he said, “Palestinians - including young people - have rejected violence as a means of achieving their aspirations. There’s an opportunity there — there’s a window.”

Have they really done that? Where? Who? How?

The president made an appeal for empathy, noting that before delivering his speech, he met with a group of young Palestinians, between the ages of 15 and 22.

“Talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons,” he said. “I honestly believe if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’”

It isn’t the Israelis who are teaching their children that their highest aspiration is to hate Israel and work for its destruction by killing Jews.

Yeah, all that genocidal rhetoric, all the rockets, all the hatred inculcated even in children — clearly Israel isn’t interested in peace. Oh, wait — sorry about that. Actually all that is coming from the “Palestinian” side. 
read more

How can State of Israel reach an agreement with people who believe it should not exist?

It has been said doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting different results is one definition of insanity. One can make a case this applies to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For example, many look to a two state solution as the best way to resolve the conflict. Yet is this a new concept? The answer is no, it’s already been tried. It happened in 1947 with UN resolution 181 which partitioned two states for two peoples. In spite of being approved by a 72% majority, the implementation on the ground was a dismal failure. Why? The Arab nations refused to accept the UN vote and attacked Israel one day after declaring independence.

Since this attempt at Israel’s destruction there have been numerous wars, two intifadas, thousands of Israeli victims of terror attacks and a host of terror organizations birthed, all with a singular goal- the destruction of Israel.

Yet the Left would have us believe two states for two peoples is the only answer which can bring a lasting peace to the decades old conflict. However, there is a major problem. Sixty-five years after rejecting a two-state solution, the Arabs have yet to change their mind. They still refuse to accept it.

It’s not that they don’t want their own state. They certainly do. However, if accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is a requirement in order for them to have their own, they prefer to remain stateless. Apparently the Left is ignoring this, or simply doesn’t believe it. Yet Arab public opinion confirms this.

A 2012 poll jointly conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and American Pollster Stanley Greenberg contained the following results:

  • 61% of Arabs/Palestinians do not accept two states for two peoples 
  • 66% would accept two states only as a first step toward one Arab-Palestinian state 
  • 92% said Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine only 

Other polls have produced similar findings.

These views reflect a belief that all the land Israel sits upon belongs to the Arabs. Why? They controlled it several hundred years ago, therefore it belongs to them forever. The Jews are seen as “occupiers.”

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this presumption. If you look back in history, is it fair to stop several hundred years ago, simply because it suits their agenda? If we are going to use ‘historical connection’ to make a case, why can’t the Jews point to theirs, which predates the Muslims by well over 2000 years? In spite of irrefutable historical and archeological evidence confirming Jewish presence, the aforementioned poll also showed 72% of Arab-Palestinians reject any Jewish connection to the land or Jerusalem.

This is a case of refusing to allow the facts to alter their agenda.

Pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land

Yet in spite of Arab rejection of a two-state solution, PM Netanyahu has repeatedly said he’s willing to accept it. Why would he say this? Does he actually support it? Is he acquiescing to the Left? Is he saying it because there is so much worldwide support for it? Actually, it’s politics at the highest level.

I believe Netanyahu is astute enough to realize if he speaks against it he will be criticized and viewed as not wanting peace. Thus, in order to placate his critics he publically supports a two-state-solution. Yet in his heart I think he realizes it will not happen. Why? It won’t happen because no Arab leader is going to sign an agreement legitimizing Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state, with Jerusalem as its capital. Said leader would risk being killed by one of his own for accepting Jewish sovereignty on land the Muslims consider theirs.

By publically proclaiming support for a two-state solution, Netanyahu accomplishes something important. He continues to be viewed as flexible by world leaders. Plus, it takes the spotlight off him and places the burden of acquiescence on the Arabs.

He also knows previous Israeli PMs have made generous offers which were refused. Lest we forget the offer made to Yasser Arafat by PM Barak? It included giving up close to 100% of Judea and Samaria, and the division of Jerusalem. Yet Arafat rejected it because a sovereign state of Israel was part of the deal.

Then-President Bill Clinton was highly disappointed in Arafat and blamed him for the breakdown of negotiations. The refusal to accept Israel by the Arabs is not lost on Netanyahu.

Yet the Left keeps pressuring Israel to unilaterally give up land. This will not produce peace. It’s the Arabs’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist which is the obstacle. A question for the Left is how do you make compromises or negotiate with people who don’t believe you should exist?

Until such time as they can provide an answer, it’s one reason why the Left isn’t right.

Dan Calic is a writer, historian and speaker.

That Other War. By Anjan Sundaram

The bloody conflict you didn’t read about this week is in Congo, and it threatens to redraw the map of Africa.

PHIL MOORE/AFP/Getty Images

KIGALI, Rwanda — One of Congo’s biggest eastern cities fell to a powerful rebel force on Tuesday, Nov. 20, in a war that may redefine the region but has produced little political action by the United Nations, the United States, and international powers that heavily support neighboring governments — notably Rwanda, a Western darling and aid recipient — that are backing the violence, according to U.N. experts. The fighting has displaced nearly 1 million people since the summer, and the battle for the city of Goma marks the latest episode of a long struggle by Rwandan-backed rebels to take control of a piece of the Democratic Republic of the Congo — a struggle the rebels are now decisively winning. The fighting has also highlighted the ineptitude of the United Nations mission, one of the world’s largest and most expensive, charged with keeping Congo’s peace.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Rwandan President Paul Kagame on Saturday “to request that he use his influence on the M23 [rebels] to help calm the situation and restrain M23 from continuing their attack,” as the U.N.’s peacekeeping chief put it. And French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius affirmed that the rebellion in Congo was supported by Rwanda, expressing “grave concern.” But the violence has only escalated since. The U.N. Security Council called an emergency session over the weekend, but its condemnation of the violence, demanding that the rebels stop advancing on Goma and insisting that outside powers stop funding the M23 rebels, have all simply been ignored. The Security Council announced it would sanction M23 but did not even mention Rwanda, the main power behind the rebellion. And even as the fighting has intensified, the U.N. mission in Congo has been making public pronouncements about new access to drinking water for people in eastern Congo — producing a surreal image of the war.

The well-equipped and professional M23 fighters, perhaps better armed and organized than any rebel unit in Congo in the past decade, put on a remarkable show of force over the weekend to move within a few kilometers of the provincial capital, Goma. The rebels not only withstood heavy shelling by U.N. helicopter gunships, but simultaneously gained ground and forced back the Congolese national army on two other fronts, according to reports. The Congolese army and U.N. peacekeeping forces subsequently stayed out of the rebels’ way, allowing M23 to capture large parts of Goma with virtually no resistance. In the end, some 3,000 Congolese soldiers, backed by hundreds of U.N. peacekeepers with air power, were unable to contain M23 forces numbering in the few hundreds.

This unprecedented military capability of the M23 rebels in a country of ragtag militias has led to many credible claims — backed by findings from U.N. experts — that Rwanda is providing weapons, soldiers, and military guidance to the rebels, with orders coming directly from Rwanda’s defense minister, Gen. James Kabarebe. Human Rights Watch says it has extensively documented Rwandan troops crossing into Congo to support the M23 rebels. Uganda, too, is accused of providing M23 with a political base, though on a request from the Congolese government it recently closed a key border-crossing point that had been helping to finance the rebels. Both Rwanda and Uganda are relatively ordered countries — in stark contrast to Congo — with well-entrenched authoritarian governments that receive significant military and financial aid from the United States and the West.

Such powerful backing means the rebels can deliver on their far-reaching threats. As Goma fell, M23 spokesman Lt. Col. Vianney Kazarama told me that rebels intended to “capture a good part of eastern Congo,” including its other major city in the east, Bukavu. The rebels have demanded that Congo’s government negotiate with them — without specifying precisely what they want. But Congo has said it will only speak with Rwanda, “the real aggressor,” and not to a “fictitious” group that is serving as a cover. For now, the M23 rebels are regrouping in Goma. And there may well be a calm interlude in the war, as parties attempt to negotiate. But given the rebels’ history, at the back of their minds is likely an old dream — of a place of their own in eastern Congo — that has become distinctly more real with Goma’s capture.

More 

How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War

Defeating Jihadist Terrorism

by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010, pp. 3-13

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers—for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari’a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a “beautiful trick.”

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

The Doctrine of Taqiyya

According to Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,[2] based on Qur’anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.[3]

This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi’i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.[4] Taqiyya allowed the Shi’a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that taqiyya is not limited to Shi’a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability oftaqiyya:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]

Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi’a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity[6]). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi’a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that made taqiyya integral to Shi’ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

The Articulation of Taqiyya

Deceit in Muhammad’s Military Exploits

Taqiyya in Qur’anic Revelation

War Is Eternal

Treaties and Truces

Hostility Disguised As Grievance

Implications

Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of ‘Ali Mohammad, bin Laden’s first “trainer” and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army’s military intelligence unit. After 1984, he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with “fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism.”[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God’s word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating “incredible self-confidence” when lying.[47]

Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today’s multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God’s word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.

It must, therefore, be accepted that, contrary to long-held academic assumptions, the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general. This phenomenon should provide a context for Shi’i Iran’s zeal—taqiyya being especially second nature to Shi’ism—to acquire nuclear power while insisting that its motives are entirely peaceful.

Nor is taqiyya confined to overseas affairs. Walid Phares of the National Defense University has lamented that homegrown Islamists are operating unfettered on American soil due to their use of taqiyya: “Does our government know what this doctrine is all about and, more importantly, are authorities educating the body of our defense apparatus regarding this stealthy threat dormant among us?”[48] After the Fort Hood massacre, when Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-Muslim who exhibited numerous Islamist signs which were ignored, killed thirteen fellow servicemen and women, one is compelled to respond in the negative.

This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God’s will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.”[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: “So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem.”[50]

In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of “war and peace” as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of “war and deceit.” For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.

[1] Qur’an 40:28.
[2] Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2000), vol. 10, p. 98.
[3] Qur’an 2:195, 4:29.
[4] Paul E. Walker, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, John Esposito, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), vol. 4, s.v. “Taqiyah,” pp. 186-7; Ibn Babuyah, A Shi’ite Creed, A. A. A. Fyzee, trans. (London: n.p., 1942), pp. 110-2; Etan Kohlberg, “Some Imami-Shi’i Views on Taqiyya,Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95 (1975): 395-402.
[5] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author’s translation.
[6] Devin Stewart, “Islam in Spain after the Reconquista,” Emory University, p. 2, accessed Nov. 27, 2009.
[7] See also Quran 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28, verses cited by Muslim jurisprudents as legitimating taqiyya.
[8] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari(Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.
[9] ’Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.
[10] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 30-7.
[11] Imam Muslim, “Kitab al-Birr wa’s-Salat, Bab Tahrim al-Kidhb wa Bayan al-Mubih Minhu,” Sahih Muslim, rev. ed., Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000).
[12] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar, 2003), p. 304, author’s translation.
[13] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, p. 32.
[14] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 142-3.
[15] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 32-3.
[16] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 367-8.
[17] Shihab ad-Din Muhammad al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim wa’ l-Saba’ al-Mithani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 2, p. 118, author’s translation.
[18] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 11-2.
[19] Ibid., pp. 41-2.
[20] Ibn Qayyim, Tafsir, in Abd al-‘Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa ‘s-Sunna(Riyahd: n.p., 2003), pp. 36-43.
[21] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, p. 20.
[22] Qur’an 2: 216.
[23] Yahya bin Sharaf ad-Din an-Nawawi, An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths, p. 16, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
[24] John Lyly, Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit (London, 1578), p. 236.
[25] Qur’an 8:39.
[26] Emile Tyan, The Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1960), vol. 2, s.v. “Djihad,” pp. 538-40.
[27] David Bukay, “Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2007, pp. 3-11, f.n. 58; David S. Powers, “The Exegetical Genre nasikh al-Qur’an wa-mansukhuhu,” in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an, Andrew Rippin, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 130-1.
[28] Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa ’ s-Sunna, p. 7.
[29] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah. An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958), vol. 1, p. 473.
[30] Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests (Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007), p. 112.
[31] ”Saudi Legal Expert Basem Alem: We Have the Right to Wage Offensive Jihad to Impose Our Way of Life,” TV Monitor, clip 2108, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Mar. 26, 2009.
[32] ”Egyptian Cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri Recommends Tricking Jews into Becoming Muslims,” TV Monitor, clip 2268, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Aug. 10, 2009.
[33] Denis MacEoin, “Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008, pp. 39-48.
[34] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 220.
[35] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina, p. 461, author’s translation.
[36] Ibid., p. 469.
[37] Muhammad al-Bukhari, “Judgements (Ahkaam),” Sahih al-Bukhari, book 89, M. Muhsin Khan, trans., accessed July 22, 2009.
[38] Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Woodstock Publishers, 2006), p. 148.
[39] Ahmed Akgündüz, “Why Did the Ottoman Sultans Not Make Hajj (Pilgrimage)?” accessed Nov. 9, 2009.
[40] Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law(Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 605.
[41] Daniel Pipes, “Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad’s Diplomacy,” Middle East Quarterly, Sept. 1999, pp. 65-72.
[42] Arabinda Acharya, “Training in Terror,” IDSS Commentaries, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, May 2, 2003.
[43] “Does hypocrite have a past tense?” for clip of Osama bin Laden, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
[44] Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Shahwan, et al, “Correspondence with Saudis: How We Can Coexist,” AmericanValues.org, accessed July 28, 2009.
[45] Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43.
[46] Steven Emerson, “Osama bin Laden’s Special Operations Man,” Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International, Sept. 1, 1998.
[47] For lists of other infiltrators of U. S. organizations, see Daniel Pipes, “Islamists Penetrate Western Security,” Mar. 9, 2008.
[48] Walid Phares, “North Carolina: Meet Taqiyya Jihad,” International Analyst Network, July 30, 2009.
[49] Qur’an 8:39.
[50] James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations: A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities (Clark, N.J.: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005), p. 124.


Waiting for Peace in the Middle East
A Reminder: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

They sure seem to have their priorities right

Damascus Demonstration: To Hell with Freedom, We Want an Islamic Caliphate and Weapons

free counters