Israel Against The World
December 28th 2006 07:06
ISRAEL AGAINST THE WORLD
Let's back the truck up a bit here. I've been reading quite a bit lately about how the Palestinian terrorists are the good guys and the Israelis deserve whatever they have had to suffer in the past and no doubt will suffer in the future.
The pro Arab group wants us to believe that Israel is illegally occupying land not ceded to it way back in 1948. As Lorrie Goldstein says, "Gee. I wonder who started those wars, who threatened to drive whom into the sea and which nation was attacked for the first time by its "Arab neighbours" the day after it was created in 1948?" The pro active group conveniently ignores the fact that Israel today occupies only 77% of the land originally given it in 1948. It seems to be too big a leap for them to make that perhaps if Israel were given back the land given to them back then, maybe they would give back some of their "illegally" occupied territory. By the way, just who is occupying that other 23%? Are they there legally? Food for thought.
The pro Arab group wants to discount the Camp David Accords. As David Frum writes, "At Camp David in 2000, for example, Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat the most favourable deal ever offered to the Palestinians. Arafat rejected the offer, and started a war to get better terms." You remember Clinton? The guy who only had one bone in his body and it didn't turn out to be a spine. If you can't get a liberal like him to give you everything you want, you've got major mental issues.
The Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission, which includes former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger and Vernon Jordan, certainly could not have produced anything quite so feeble and unconvincing as they have all produced together. Among the report's big ideas is a major new American diplomatic push to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Gee, I thought the Americans have been trying to get peace in the mid-East for umpteen years now. Granted, now that Arafat is out of the equation, there might be a better chance of achieving this goal, but not while the Palestinians hold on to the belief of annihilating the Jews. As Mr. Frum writes, "The Arabs could have had peace with Israel on easy terms at any time since 1949. They have persistently refused it. The Palestinians could have had a state in the West Bank and Gaza at any time since 1967. They have disdained that offer too. Might it not be closer to the truth to say that Arab radicalism is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute -- not the result of it? There is no peace because Israel's neighbours -- and too many of the world's Muslims -- cannot accept the right of a non-Arab, non-Muslim minority to live unsubjugated in the Middle East. That is the true "core" of the dispute."
The supporters of the Palestinians refuse to recognize this fact and would rather you didn't believe it either. They swallow the liberal pap they are fed every day and are in just as much denial as the Arabs who send suicide-murderers into the streets to blow up innocent children.
Let's back the truck up a bit here. I've been reading quite a bit lately about how the Palestinian terrorists are the good guys and the Israelis deserve whatever they have had to suffer in the past and no doubt will suffer in the future.
The pro Arab group wants us to believe that Israel is illegally occupying land not ceded to it way back in 1948. As Lorrie Goldstein says, "Gee. I wonder who started those wars, who threatened to drive whom into the sea and which nation was attacked for the first time by its "Arab neighbours" the day after it was created in 1948?" The pro active group conveniently ignores the fact that Israel today occupies only 77% of the land originally given it in 1948. It seems to be too big a leap for them to make that perhaps if Israel were given back the land given to them back then, maybe they would give back some of their "illegally" occupied territory. By the way, just who is occupying that other 23%? Are they there legally? Food for thought.
The Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission, which includes former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger and Vernon Jordan, certainly could not have produced anything quite so feeble and unconvincing as they have all produced together. Among the report's big ideas is a major new American diplomatic push to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Gee, I thought the Americans have been trying to get peace in the mid-East for umpteen years now. Granted, now that Arafat is out of the equation, there might be a better chance of achieving this goal, but not while the Palestinians hold on to the belief of annihilating the Jews. As Mr. Frum writes, "The Arabs could have had peace with Israel on easy terms at any time since 1949. They have persistently refused it. The Palestinians could have had a state in the West Bank and Gaza at any time since 1967. They have disdained that offer too. Might it not be closer to the truth to say that Arab radicalism is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute -- not the result of it? There is no peace because Israel's neighbours -- and too many of the world's Muslims -- cannot accept the right of a non-Arab, non-Muslim minority to live unsubjugated in the Middle East. That is the true "core" of the dispute."
| 33 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Don Lee
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by lara
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern