Barack Obama's Cairo Cuddle speech in June was in some ways a projective test. Areas in which he sought to praise the Arabs are those that count with Westerners, and may have been designed not just to flatter his Muslim listeners, but to tell us how close culturally Middle Easterners are to the West. The West is proud of its achievements in science and technology and medicine. Obama ignored Jewish prizewinners — relative to their percentage of the global population, their share of Nobel awards has been hugely disproportionate — and attributed such accomplishments to the Arabs. He wasn't completely wrong — a handful of Nobel science and medicine awards has gone to Arabs. Admittedly, saints such as Yassir Arafat have walked off with the Nobel Peace Prize, but, thanks to him and his fellow Arabs, no one takes the Peace Prize seriously any more. Obama plunged back into history to credit Arabs with technological achievements. As Robert Spencer points out, "much of this has been exaggerated" and misattributed. We care about defending democracy and so he claimed Morocco was the first nation to recognize the new United States of America. He must hope that Americans are as ignorant of history as they are reputed to be; otherwise, they might know that our major interaction with Tangiers was in fending off the Tripoli pirates that preyed on our ships. Shades of Somalia!

How far Prez Obama had to stray from the truth to make nice to Islam is a measure of how unproductive Islam really is except in terror and violence and other man-made evil.

Since Barack Obama's Cairo speech, much has been written about some of his linkages. Associating how the Jews were treated by the Nazis and how they treat the Palestinian Arabs is dead wrong and tacky but it makes sense as a crude political act of friendship to the Muslim world. As Gerald Steinberg wrote in the Jerusalem Post:

"The narrative war, which has conquered Europe and is moving to North America, begins with the false history covering the Mandate period, from the Balfour Declaration through the 1947 UN partition plan. This version portrays Israel as a Jewish 'colonization project' forced on the Arabs by European anti-Semitism and guilt after the Holocaust, as well as Jewish power and manipulation (as reflected in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). The violent Arab rejection of the original 'two states for two peoples' proposal, and the continued refusal to accept a Jewish state, regardless of borders, has been removed from these histories.

ARE WE STILL AT WAR WITH RESURGENT ISLAM? The general tenor of the Cairo speech is certainly another sign that we no longer plan much new military action even though Islamic terrorists dramatically started a war against us in 2001 and resurgent Islam has no intention of stopping its global Jihad until it achieves world conquest.. If the Arab leaders are smart enough to keep infiltration in the USA limited to low-keyed assaults — co-opting our media and educational and banking systems — and if they doesn't do something we can't ignore, they will pretty much have a free hand during Obama's administration. As Muslim influence grows, their hateful attitude to Jews will become more acceptable. As it is, they disrupt meetings they don't like with impunity; their posters and cartoons and writings are full of ugly anti-semitism; they threaten anyone who doesn't agree with them; they work well with far-left Marxists, far-right white-supremist Fascists, and Black Liberation theologians. They call for fair play only when someone shows 'disrespect' towards them. That they call Islamophobia.

We knew we were at war with Islam, from September 11, 2001 when the Islamists declared war on us until Prez Bush declared that Islam was a peaceful religion. That took the wind out of our sails. We really didn't know how to handle Iraq once our invasion was over and the Arabs started their counter attacks, using terror as their main weapon. They weren't worried about winning — or losing — the hearts of their countrymen. But we were. We didn't hit the terror attacks as hard as we had in Europe to destroy Nazism because we had decided our goal was "democracy," a hard sell in any Arab society. And because we tried to replace their undemocratic view of the world without first eradicating their original ideology, we haven't made much of a dent.

Using multiple techniques, Jihad is doing well globally. They riot in Paris and in China's Xinjiang province; the grievances differ, the action is the same. They attack Jews in Seattle and Jews in Mumbai; the grievances differ, the action is the same. They continue to disrupt and take over cities in Europe, while living off Europe's generous welfare system. Europeans are reluctant to give up their pride in their hard-earned persona of tolerance and kindness to the immigrants in their midst.

Terror attacks against Israel continue and the Gaza strip has become a place that offers training to all sorts of would-be terrorists. They encourage their own childrens to become shaheed (martyrs for Mohammed). Israel's power is blunted because the Arabs are portrayed as poor and downtrodden. For a long time, terrorism against Israel was justified using the argument that the Po' Palestinians had no other weapons against the Middle East's superpower. Now that the Arabs feel they are winning, their argument — and that of their friends on TV such as Fareed Zakaria — is that there are so few Jews and so many billions of Muslims, we better listen respectfully to the Moslems. By this argument, the struggle should again be portrayed as David defending Israel against Goliath. But, thanks to the U.N., pro-Arab propagandists and Arab petrodollars, Israel is not being praised for its scrupulous pinpointing of terrorist and avoidance of civilian casualties. Instead, it is being investigated by the Moslem-infested U.N. for its "brutality in Gaza," because some human shields were killed.

In America, like termites, they are eating away at our infrastructure. Write a nasty book about them or say it over the radio, and they'll sue you into poverty. Consequently, by using lawfare threats and spending Arab pocket money, they have distorted the history and social science textbooks used from Kindergarden through High School to puff-praise Islam. They are enticing the banking system into adopting Sharia banking — which emphasizes that in Islam, you can't charge interest. Even the FBI is teaching sharia banking. And everyone pretends the bankers can have the benefits of Sharia's huge fees (no interest, just a few fees and service charges, folks.) but ignore that sharia banking takes on the coloration of Islam's active contempt for everybody but Muslim men. Sharia banking — which is actually a 20th century invention conceptualized by a Pakistani journalist, Sayyid Abul-ala Mawdudi, and expanded by one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb — is also an excellent way to siphon off sizable amounts of money to support the charity of choice: jihad terrorists. (See "Banking on Allah" here.)

Can you imagine in World War 2 when we fought the Germans, Americans choosing a German for president? It is just as unbelievable that when the Arab Jihadists declared war against us, a Muslim and a self-confessed sympathizer of Islam, Marxism and Black Liberation Theology would become our president? It happened. It couldn't have happened if the media had presented the facts. It couldn't have happened if the lines linking Obama and his unsavory friends were not erased as efficiently as the connections between "random" bombings/snipings and the "lone" Muslim gunmen attacking citizens in their homes, in airports, in community centers. In New York City alone, they struck at Starbucks on 92nd street, an Armed Forces recruiting station on 42nd, the British consulate and the Mexican Consulate. The official line is that the loner terrorist isn't a variant of the Arab terror attacker.

While Usama and the Arab terror cohorts continue to call for a long sustained war againsts us (we are infidels, are we not?), Obama has promised the Arabs America is not and never will be at war with Islam.

The assumption is that our experience in diplomacy is applicable to dealing with Islamists. Gary Bauer has pointed out why this is a fallacy:

"Here is what Obama and the American Left do not understand. When you negotiate with Iran, you aren't negotiating with a country — you are negotiating with a cause. Countries can be convinced to make concessions. But a 'cause,' in this case the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, does not make concessions or follow the rules of diplomacy. Ahmadinejad and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad see themselves as warriors for Allah. To them, every Western concession is further proof that Allah is bringing them victory; it is further justification for terrorism and other barbaric tactics. Israel understands this. Sadly, our president does not."

Shiite Iran awaits the return of the Mahdi, both a spiritual and temporal leader, at the end of time. The Sunnis — the Saudis are in this group — also have dreams of global supremacy. They dream of the return of the Caliphate, which will rule supreme over an Islamic community that accepts Shari'ah. Nowadays, they don't just dream. They believe they have the power to create an Islam that reigns over all other people. Why ever would they listen to us talk. Just talk.
 

ISRAEL, THE JEWISH STATE, HAS, THROUGH NO DESIRE OF ITS OWN, BECOME A MAJOR FRONT in what's left of the fight again a global Islamic takeover. Yet, in Obama's rearrangement of America's friends and enemies, it's unlikely that bolstering Israel is going to have high priority. Which brings us to some other of his linkages. We have been reassured that a revitalized Palestinian-Israeli peace process will somehow or other stabilize the Middle East (ME) and take care of Iran's nuclear ambitions. The details of how this is to come about have been hand-waved away.

Through a process as befogged as the one whereby all Americans will have free health care without their taxes going up or the one where China and India can continue to use coal, but Americans will be taxed a hefty amount for using energy, but somehow it won't actually come out of their pockets, the Obama administration asserts that having a peaceful resolution of Palestinian demands will cause the Iranians to give up their intention to nuke the Israelis.

The peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is also — depending on who is solemnly stating this as a certainty — said to be a pre-condition for peace between Israel and its Arab and Iranian neighbors. Or maybe just peace between Israel and the Palestinian arabs. Or maybe just peace with Mahmoud Abbas.

The Peace Process is the environment in which a Palestinian State is to come into existence. It apparently doesn't require the physical participation of the parties involved. Matters are determined by decree. Obama's decree.

In "How to Think About the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Susie Linfield discusses Benny Morris and his changed viewpoint about the Arab-Israeli conflict. She writes that Morris now rejects the bi-national state solution because it would wipe out the Jewish character of Israel and he no longer believes the 2-state solution is feasible. Morris wrote: "... there is no doubt that the destruction of Israel, far more than the building of a Palestinian state, has been the holy grail — the non plus ultra — of Arab politics since 1947..." A Palestinian state with "[i]ts minute size, Morris writes, would 'leave the Arabs, all Arabs, with a deep sense of injustice, affront, and humiliation and a legitimate perception that a state consisting of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (and perhaps large parts of East Jerusalem) ...is simply not viable, politically or economically.'" Morris sees Jordan as a possibility "for absorbing the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Gaza and the diaspora..."

Obama has come down squarely on the side of a two-people in two states, living equitably side by side, solution. Implicitly, he has abandoned the possibility of a single bi-national state solution, where Jews and Arabs share a state — the Arabs setting policy and insisting on Sharia law; the Jews, a Dhimmi people, attending to trivia like garbage collection. In this, Obama is on the side of the majority that has, over the years, reluctantly abandoned the vision of two people sharing a state and a common destiny. They see carving up Israel to create space for the Palestinian people as the only alternative.

However he got to that point, Barack Obama — touted as the great compromiser and believer that countries run their own show — is uncompromisingly determined that there be yet another Palestinian State carved out of Mandated Palestine. And this, in turn, is linked to stopping the growth of the Jewish settlements. Indeed, the suppression of new housing in Samaria and Judea and eastern Jerusalem is an consequence of the Obama's insistence that Lo! Let there be a Palestinian State. Here, his thinking seems easy to follow: he wishes to prevent the Jews from anchoring more people in Samaria and Judea and eastern Jerusalem, because that might be a reason for depriving the Palestinians of what he sees as their right to the land. Of course, stopping Jewish building in the Territories has its own consequence. As Charles Krauthammer sums it up, "...for every child born, someone has to move out. ... The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns — even before negotiations."

The fact that the state or statelets of Palestine will be run by squabbling terrorists united only by their love of killing Jews is ignored. The fact that the PLO, our terrorist friends, no longer have a legitimate government — Mahmoud Abbas' term of office has expired and a new election isn't due until January 2010 — is ignored. The fact that Mahmood Abbas — who owes his precarious perch as leader of the PLO to the Jews protecting him from Hamas — now demands that Israel become a non-Jewish state is ignored. The fact that the Palestinians aren't going to be satisfied with just the territories — their official map, shown in the photo, is not divided between a Jewish Israel and an Arab Palestine; it is all Palestine — is ignored. The fact that the PLO and HAMAS (and the terrorist splinter groups housed in Gaza) don't have normal governance but are structured as thuggeries, designed to siphon off most of the resources that are intended for the populace, is ignored. As Ramy Dishy has pointed out in an email

"No state can come to exist by declaration only. It needs an economy, functioning government, proven accomplishment and stability that will lead it, to the task and difficulties ahead. None of that exist with the Arab of the disputed territories controlled by Israel today.

"Since 1993, with the signing of the Oslo accord, not a single progress to peace on the Arab side took place. Israel gave authorities and arms and full control on most of the Arab population, getting back terror and and declaration of Jihad and martyrdom, the clear message that the war is going non stop and will only intensify till Israel will be eliminated."

OBAMA'S CHAINED LINKAGES — ME STABILITY/ME PEACE <- PALESTINIAN STATE <- PEACE PROCESS <- STOPPED SETTLEMENTS — simply have nothing to do with the reality of Middle East history and enmities. They will not increase cooperation among Arab countries; they will not diminish Iranian nuclear ambitions; they will not please the Arab countries that we give the Palestinian Arabs more land to increase their warlike capabilities. What might a Palestinian state actually do? Possibly, it might destroy Israel. Which may, of course, be the actual point of the exercise.

Obama has ignored all of this. His only concern is that room be made for the new state inside of Israel, cutting through Israel and next to Israel, with Israel serving as organ donor to the latest Arab — and Muslim — state.

There was one slight slippage recently in the smooth hitching of Iranian peacefulness to a Palestinian-Israeli peace process. On the Iranian side, the Administration was justifiably annoyed that six months of preparing Iran to negotiate almost went out the window when crowds of Iranians took to the street to protest election fraud. But thanks in part to Obama's decision not to interfere, things have simmered down. The people have been put in their place. Peaceful negotiations with the Mullahs can continue.

Whether or not the 2-state solution will have any impact on Iran other than adding to its feelings of triumph, Israel is being pounded to accede to Obama's demands. Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Equal but separate. Well, partially separate. Jews won't be allowed in Palestine, of course. Arab countries don't allow Jews to live in their countries — except for the few thousand Jews that weren't forced out starting in the 1940s. But Arabs who live in Israel will stay in Israel; their citizenship will not be jeopardized. And if Israel isn't careful, she might also have an influx of descendents of the Arab refugees. Susie Linfield, in her essay on Benny Morris, pointed out that "[w]hen the Palestinians demand the 'right' to return, they are essentially demanding two states of Muslim Arabs: one in the West Bank and Gaza, the other in Israel." Right of Return applies to no other refugee group, including the Jews that were lucky enough to escape with their lives and none of their property from the Arab countries. (See for example, Ben-Dror Yemini's paper here.)

Diplomats and politicians have aligned themselves on the side of a two-state solution. For them, it is an opportunity with no risks. If they can coerce Israel into allowing a Palestinian state, they can declare a success. If nothing happens they have lost nothing. If they judged wrong, and Jews die, they don't suffer the consequences.

They should suffer consequences. They need to have the awesome experience of making a lousy decision AND PAYING FOR IT. We suggest they have a stake in the future they demand. We suggest they send some of those they hold dear — their children, their grandchildren — to Israel, where the hostages will live like ordinary Israelis. They'll get a wonderful education, learn a second language and if the diplomats guessed wrong, be slaughtered by the Arabs.

For many years, what passes as Israeli leadership have also asserted they wanted the 2-state solution. They may have been pretending — saying what was expected of them, but not really desirous of having a terror state straddling Israel. But that doesn't matter. They sounded as if that was what they wanted. And so, in a way, Israel asked for the bind in which it now find itself.

As Richard H. Shulman writes,

"For the past 16 years, successive Israeli governments have wrongly believed that politics trump strategic interests. The notion that informed Israel's decision-makers — not unlike the notion that now informs the Obama administration — was that Israel's strategic interests would be secured as a consequence of its efforts to appease its enemies by weakening itself. Appreciative of Israel's sacrifices for peace, the nations of the world — and particularly the US, the Arabs and Europe — would come to Israel's defense in its hour of need. Now that the hour of need has arrived, Israel's political strategy for securing itself has been exposed as a complete fiasco."

In a more general way, Israel has been as conciliatory for peace and appeasement-minded as the Arabs have been recalcitrant and unwilling to yield in their demands. Israel was willing to concede land. The Arabs were willing to take the concessions and demand more. You can hardly blame diplomats and politicians for taking the easy way out and pressuring Israel, which had amply demonstrated she was an easy mark. Savoring a diplomatic win smothers any reservations the politicians might have about the readiness of the Palestinian Arabs for statehood. As political scientist Emmanuel Navon has pointed out,

"They [the Palestinians] are now partially ruled by Hamas, which denies Israel's right to exist, and by Fatah, which denies Israel's right to be Jewish. Creating a Palestinian state while Hamas has the upper hand and Iran is about to become nuclear would pave the way to Israel's destruction, not to peace."

IT IS LEGITIMATE FOR THE REST OF US TO ASK: HAVE WE EVEN PHRASED THE PROBLEM PROPERLY? Are the only two options the one-state solution where Israel is immediately absorbed by the Arabs and the two-state solution, where Israel is more slowly dissected by its Arab neighbors?

It is legitimate for the rest of us to ask why should the Arabs have yet another Arab state to add to the 22 now in existence and the Jews be squeezed out of the only Jewish State?

There are other options. For one, there's a regional approach where the Palestinians living in the various Arab countries are distributed among the different populations and made citizens. Or create a virtual state for them by some sort of Israel and Jordan federation in the Territories and one for Israel and Egypt in Gaza. Or give the noveau people, the Palestinians, their own state. Just not in Israel. The Arabs own 99.9% of the Middle East and much of it is underpopulated. This will have the advantage of giving the Arabs now living in Samaria and Judea and Gaza sufficient space to possibly create a viable state. As Michael Bar Zohar has pointed out here,

The total area of the West Bank is 2,270 square miles, less than half the size of Los Angeles County. Out of this territory, the Judean desert occupies more than a third — 775 square miles. Does anybody believe that this tiny slice of territory, sandwiched between Israel and Jordan, will provide enough living space for the local 2.4 million Palestinians, and for millions of Palestinian refugees who will return to their homeland?

Moreover, 1.5 million Palestinians live in Gaza, on a territory of 141 square miles; those who want to give them a decent chance in life will have to transfer most of them to other parts of Palestine, namely the West Bank. Would the West Bank be able to absorb another million Palestinians on its poor, arid territory?

Arabs do seem to need a lot of space to get anything done. Jordan is at least 3 times the size of Israel, has been an entity much longer than Israel, and has had the advantage that it hasn't needed to worry about invasion from its neighbors. Nevertheless, its literacy rate is low and its unemployment rate is high — in fact, if so many weren't working in the public sector, the unemployment rate would be substantially higher. The estimate is that unemployment is really running at 50%. It is not technologically an advanced country.

The Palestinian refugees are an Arab-generated problem. There is land in Arab Land. Use 1% of that land and that would be an area at least 10 times the size of Israel. It would have a chance at viability. Shower it with the moneys now going to UNRWA and refugee camps and terrorist training. Let all those who believe the Palestinians are a real people who deserve a state come and help them in situ. Monitor it enough to make sure it isn't another terrorist training camp. Monitor the textbooks and schools to eradicate the hate messages that are now drilled into defenseless 4-year olds, instilling in them the belief that shahida is noble and a worthwhile goal. Either that or build a fence around the area and let them do as they wish inside. Let them decide to choose life or death. For themselves. Not for Israel.

The Arab countries have invaded Israel three times, trying to kill her off, They didn't succeed. Israel has every right — legally by international law and morally — to Israel, Gaza, Samaria, Judea, the Golan and all of Jerusalem. Yet there are problems adopting such an positive attitude that have nothing to do with realistic concerns and much to do with longterm conditioning. After Egypt's 1973 attack on Israel, Israel gave Egypt back all of the Sinai, even though, according to insiders such as Moshe Sharon, Egypt expected only to get a small piece back. It was a bad precedent. The cry is always that tiny Israel must be the one to give up land to the Arabs. This is so ingrained that the notion that the Arabs have such vast amounts of land, they could spare some for their cousins, the Palestinians, is usually rejected without inspection.

For many years many an Israeli had also come to believe that giving up land would bring peace. Especially when it was tied to the spurious claim of the "Palestinians" that Palestine is their homeland, a homeland that Israel is said to be occupying. [See the papers by Harry Mandelbaum here and Boris Shusteff here for an accurate analysis of "Palestinian and "Palestine".] The silver lining to the Gaza expulsion is that few Israelis retain the pre-Oslo Accord optimism that land can be swapped for peace.

Another problems is the dhimmi attitude of Israeli politicians towards the U.S.A. Not getting along with the American regime is said to be a major threat to political survival. And so it was that during the recent Kadima administration, we had the spectacle of idiot politicians sounding like the one thing they want to accomplish in life was to midwife a Palestinian state.

North Korea took one listen to Obama-boy scolding them and boldly set off a missile. In Europe, the French Sarkosy and the German Merkel listened to his plea they too spend their countries into bankrupcy and said no.

If only Netanyahu could learn to keep his tongue in his mouth and his lips zipped. It isn't clever being ambiguous. It isn't clever pretending you are sort of for a Palestinian state sitting on, in, next to and across Israel. The media and diplos of the world can turn even a hesitancy into an impassioned yes. The only thing to do is what all the other countries of the western world have said to Obama: NO.
 

THERE ARE SOME MAJOR REASONS THAT ISRAEL CAN NOT ALLOW AN ARAB TERRORIST STATE NEAR IT: Yosef Rabin has pointed some of the consequences for Israel of destroying Israel's integrity by creating yet another Arab state. He posted this just before the Netanyahu-Obama meeting in Washington on May 18, 2009.

Why is the homeland of an ancient people to be given to a ragtag bunch of Arabs that mostly immigrated into this land after 1900 and were declared a people by Yasser Arafat in 1964? Is it so that Prez Obama, who hasn't gotten one other country to do his bidding, can have a foreign policy victory? Is there really a desire to give the Palestinians — who are held in contempt by the other Arabs — a country? Or is this seen as a perfect way to destroy Israel?

The United Nations Development Program has recently conducted a poll asking Palestinians to define their identity. 47% identified themselves as Muslims, 28 % as Palestinians, 14% as humans and 10% as Arabs. All the invasions from the neighboring Arab states, the intifadas, the terror attacks — they have supposedly been fought on behalf of a people of whom 72% do not even primarily identify themselves as 'palestinian'.

Someone truly concerned with two equal states would be investing in teaching building construction, nation building, not military skills emphasizing invasion and crowd management (See Marc Prowisor's article here.) It suggests that even Obama knows there can not be two states. There can be a Jewish state. There can be a Palestinian state in Israel, around Israel, cutting through Israel and wedged next to Israel and ultimately encompassing all of Israel. But a Jewish state, no matter how cooperative, and an Arab state run by men whose mission is to destroy the Jewish state, can not coexist.

Obama has cast his lot with the "Palestinian" State. He is apparently willing to destroy an ancient people who gave Morality to the West and which continues to function to benefit mankind with innovative technology and life-saving medicine. And for what? To pretend that a ramshackle "people", Arab-speaking immigrants, with long-time roots in the neighboring Arab countries, must have their own state. Whenever given the choice, they chose as their mission the destruction of Israel, not the hard job of creating the infrastructure of a functional government. They are good at innovative murder techniques — not everyone would think of improving an explosive by stuffing it with rusty nails coated in rat poison. They are not serious about a state. They want the unmonitored land to train children and grownups, native and foreign, in the art of murder. They want space to make and store weapons. As always, they will leave the job of feeding and medicating and supplying electricity to the populace largely to others, especially the Israelis. Which brings up another point. They claim Gazan Arabs are starving and have no electricity. Give them Samaria and Judea and the same will happen there. If they can't support the current population, how are they going to support the millions of Arab refugees they insist must return to Palestine? Oh yes, of course, the refugees will immediately apply for Israeli welfare, which will be good until they destroy the state.

In the set of essays in this issue of Think-Israel in the group entitled "Solving the Palestinian Problem" here, there are several proposals of how to solve the Palestine-Israel conflict, that is supposed to be the reason the Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel.

Let me add my two cents.

The notion of a bi-national state is ludicrous, especially when it is clear that the Arabs will empty out some of the refugee camps into this state to add weight to their demand for a "democratically elected" Arab government, which will adopt sharia law, as Muslim countries generally do. In any event, this solution has few advocates.

The notion of two states living side by side is a fairy tale. It would be a compressed and ripped up Israel, under siege from all sides and from within by a bloodthirsty group of arabs exultant that they have more elbow room in which to manufacture the weaponry and train the people to destroy what is left of Israel.

This is what is currently planned as the new Palestinian state. The tunnels to smuggle in goods and weaponry from Egypt are not shown. The map comes from Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI). (UCI is the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Visit their website at www.israelunitycoalition.org)

So what is there to do? I suggest the Palestinian arabs be given a piece of land somewhere in Arab Land. Let it be as large as Israel. Let it be 5 times the size of Israel. Even 10 times the size won't make a noticable ripple in the land mass the Arabs control. Just make sure it is isolated. Move the Arabs from the territories there. Empty the refugee camps and move the refugees to New Palestina. Move the Israeli Arabs who have proven their disloyalty to the Jewish state. Use the money the U.S.A., the U.N., and the E.U. now contribute to the Arabs in the territories and in the camps as starter funds. If they wish to learn how to become a state, help them. If they wish to continue as a death cult, let them — as long as they keep it inside their territory. Their call. Meantime, the Israeli Jews can go back to inventing and developing modern medical and technological miracles.

For many years it has been fashionable to point out that the Jews are so hungry for peace, Palestinians could have had a state any time they wanted, if only they agreed to forego terrorism. That is definitely the wrong attitude to take. Were Palestinians Arabs as peaceful as Buddhists, were they a bunch of pacifists who wouldn't swat a fly, let alone crush a defenseless child, Israel can still not entrust them with Samaria and Judea. It is absolute madness to allow your water supply be controlled by a foreign group. Whatever are the Jews thinking?

The Palestinian Arabs have to be moved out of Israel and the Territories.

Why not Jordan? It seems a logical choice of habitat, considering that at least 70% of the population is considered Palestinian. I think Jordan would be a mistake. We know from experience that every time Arafat's crew got to a sufficient size, they tried to take over some of their host's land. They had no desire to govern it peacefully but used it as a base to exploit the local businesses and collect "taxes". The key to the success of the project is isolating the Palestinian arabs and letting them choose their own destiny, without interfering in other people's countries.

To conclude: it is true we have been lulled and dulled into believing Islam isn't out to get us. We can only hope that enough people come out of denial soon enough to avoid dhimmitude. But as things stand, a Palestinian state in Israel would mean the end of Israel. And it would mean that America has likely lost the war to resurgent Islam.
 

_________________________End of Story___________________________

HOME

May-June 2009 Featured Stories

Background Information

News On The Web