Doc's Talk: Waltzing with Suicide Bombers at Ground Zero. The Dangers of “Interfaith Dialogue.”

Friday, May 28, 2010

Waltzing with Suicide Bombers at Ground Zero. The Dangers of “Interfaith Dialogue.”

Phyllis Chesler
The Jews and Christians Behind the “Cordoba Initiative”

The concept of an “interfaith dialogue” is an alluring one. It assumes that people of faith are, by definition, virtuous, honest, tolerant, soft-spoken–and, hopefully, more committed to peace, reason, and morality than non-religious people are.

But is this true?

What if some religious people who are involved in such seductive dialogues are also crafty, evil, double-dealing hypocrites, more interested in money, power, sex, and war than in embracing lives of poverty, powerlessness, chastity, or even self-restraint? What if they are liars? Or addicts? Or, like so many others, merely addicted to the “high life”? I myself believe in talking to and working with [1] Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists—some of whom are religious Muslims, many of whom are secularists or apostates, but none of whom are powerful imams or sheikhs. I also believe in talking to and working with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and atheists who are anti-Islamist—not necessarily anti-Islam or anti-Muslim—and who support universal human rights. By definition, we are all opposed [2] to Islamic gender and religious apartheid, misogyny in general, and the demonization of Israel, America, and the West. These are my kind of “interfaith” allies.

Jews are especially tempted by the idea of an “interfaith dialogue.” Why? Because it means that as long as one is still talking, the pogrom has not yet started. Also, despite a long and terrible history of being persecuted and murdered, Jews still continue to believe that reason, ideas, charm, even cleverness still have the power to triumph over genocidal hatred. Jews also believe that listening to the “other,” trying to understand his pain, will lead the lion to lie down with the lamb.

Thus, any number of prominent (and non-prominent) religious Jews are involved in “interfaith dialogues.” They fly around the world (they are often in constant motion) as they meet with their counterparts. Some stay at five star hotels or in palaces; others reside in more modest lodgings. Some are pillars of their communities; others seek to overthrow those very pillars. Some are clean-shaven, others fully bearded. Some sport ponytails and long, flowing hair. Some are seen as radically progressive, others as radically conservative. Mainly, all are men. Rabbis Arthur Waskow and Michael Lerner immediately come to mind. I bear a residual sentimentality towards them, (we go way back), but I certainly do not agree with their views about Israel, America, jihad, global warming, or the “Palestinian” question.

But there are other prominent, religious Jews who are more directly involved with the Cordoba Initiative, otherwise known as the mosque at Ground Zero, and with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, its chairman. (Abdul is part of his last name, which means “servant of The Kind One.”)

http://persia1.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mosque_of_cordoba_spain.jpg

The Great Mosque of Cordoba, originally a Christian Visigothic Church

Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield, the director of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership (CLAL), has been working with Imam Abdul Rauf for awhile. In fact, Rabbi Hirschfield is on the Advisory Board [3] of the Cordoba Initiative. In 2007, Rabbi Hirschfield spoke on a panel together with Abdul Rauf for the Cordoba Initiative. The panel was also sponsored by CLAL and the American Society for Muslim Advancement—and took place at UC Irvine (the very university where Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech was disrupted). Their subject? “Why Should/Would Israel & Palestine exist? …How Cultural Narratives Compete.” For all I know, it was a principled and moving moment. I have no sure way of knowing. All I can say is that these two men — Hirschfield and Abdul Rauf — are in each other’s orbit, talking, presenting and working together publicly.

Rabbi Hirschfield was also involved with Buffalo-based Muzzammil Hassan, the founder of Bridges TV, who turned out to be a serious and serial wife batterer and wife killer. He is the man who beheaded his wife Aasiya when she dared to leave him. Bridges advertised itself as committed to interfaith dialogue and to the presentation of a positive image of Muslim-Americans. Amazingly, Hirschfield, an author and radio personality, (whom I have met twice, but briefly), has not dropped his association with Bridges, at least as shown on Wikipedia [4].

There are worlds within worlds. Rabbi Hirschfield, Imam Abdul Rauf, and former President Jimmy Carter, the author of the infamous book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, have all worked together at the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions. They presented at the same conference [5], the same year. Look: Maybe Rabbi Hirschfield tackled Carter at this conference—but probably not as forcibly and passionately as Alan Dershowitz tried to do at Brandeis. (Carter refused to appear with Dershowitz).

Jimmy Carter [6]? He is a Jew-hater, Israel-demonizer, and a Saudi-money lover.

In any event: Rabbi Hirschfield may have good intentions. My point: He may not be a good judge of character. Or, he may not care with whom he associates. Just as he was willing to work with Muzzammil Hassan “for the greater cause,” just so, is he now working with Imam Abdul Rauf.

http://tomdiaz.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/madrid-bombing-large-01.jpg

3/11 Madrid Bombing

Rabbi Hirschfield is not alone. There is also Professor Michael Gottsegen, a Visiting Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies at Brown University who is also on staff at CLAL. In addition, Gottsegen is listed [7] as a technical consultant at the website for the Cordoba Initiative. Dr. Gottsegen is a co–founder and Executive Committee member of the Consultation on Interfaith Education (CIE), an advisory group with links to the Parliament of the World’s Religions (where Hirschfield, Carter, and Abdul Rauf have presented) and at the United Nations (currently run by tyrants and Islamists). CIE represents the world’s major religions, and seeks to promote and map the field of interfaith education globally. CLAL has been a member of CIE since 2003.

Finally, the highly distinguished Rabbi Arthur Schneier, of Manhattan’s Park East Synagogue, has also praised the work of Imam Abdul Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative. Rabbi Arthur is quoted [8] in the New York Times as saying: “He [Imam Abdul Rauf] subscribes to my credo: ‘Live and let live.’” However, Rabbi Schneier, Senior, is not on the Board of the Initiative.

His son, Rabbi Marc Schneier [9], who, together with Russell Simmons of Def Jam, runs the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, is working a slightly different, and younger, monied side of the street. Rabbi Marc is the one who launched the “twinning” of mosques and synagogues. He sponsored a panel at which Imam Namous, of the Islamic Center of New York, and Imam Samer AlRaey, a chaplain at Baruch College, CUNY, appeared. Like father, like son. Rabbi Marc is not on the Advisory Board of the Cordoba Initiative either.

By the way: The Islamic Center of New York is a heavily fortified and gated mosque—and yet it is called a Center. We should bear this in mind vis-a-vis the Center/Mosque at Ground Zero. And, by the way, it seems beautiful—but most of the women who gather there are heavily shrouded.

Now, let’s presume that Imam Abdul Rauf is one of the “good guys.” If so, why does he have Karen Armstrong on the Advisory Board of the Cordoba Initiative? Armstrong is the former nun and bestselling author who just happens to be a serious demonizer of Israel and a Jew-hater. According to Andrea Levin [10], the founder of CAMERA, Armstrong

“omits or obscures information that points to unique Jewish attachment to Jerusalem. … Armstrong is particularly popular with Arab-American groups promoting harshly anti-Israel agendas. [S]he wrote [in the Journal of Palestine Studies]:

“A city cannot be holy if it is not ruled with justice. Expropriating land, torturing, destroying property, threatening other people’s holy places, ejecting people from their ancestral homes, and depriving them of essential human rights cannot be justified…”

No, this is not a characterization of the Arab occupation of East Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, its dispossession of the Jews and destruction of their property and holy places. It is an Orwellian gloss on the Israeli presence in the city as a reign of inequity which “cannot be justified in Jewish tradition by the overriding sanctity of Jerusalem, because holiness is also and inescapably a moral imperative to justice.”

And why is United Nations functionary Shashi Tharoor on the Board of the Cordoba Initiative? The United Nations—oh, let’s spare each other here. I do believe that the United States should pull out and found an organization of democracies, not tyrannies, democracies in which human rights exist and are not a mockery. If for no other reason: We should have all walked out when Iran was elected [11] to the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women.

Still, let’s give Imam Abdul Rauf the benefit of the doubt. But why, then, is someone like Joan Brown Campbell, the director of the department of religion at the Chautauqua Institution [8], so enamored of him? Can it be because they both share the same brand of anti-Israelism/anti-Judaism/pro-Palestinianism?

Campbell was once the Secretary General of the National Council of Churches (NCC), which has gone on record demanding that terrorists be tried as citizens, not as enemy combatants. Between 2000-2003, the NCC issued seven human rights criticisms. They condemned [12] Israel four times, the United States twice, and Sudan once.

Let us still give Imam Abdul Rauf every benefit of every doubt. But why does he insist on building so close to Ground Zero? Yes, I know: One wants a tikkun, a redress, a radical turning of evil into good and yet, if one truly comes in peace and not to conquer, one first asks the families of the victims whether they would be offended if a mosque were to rise in this very spot. Might there be another, even better location to begin the important but difficult work of interfaith dialogue? According to Joan Brown Campbell [8], “building so close is owning the tragedy. It’s a way of saying we want to be here to repair the breach, as the Bible says.” But that’s Campbell speaking.

I question the…brash boldness of the location choice. It augers no good.

But why has Imam Abdul Rauf named his work “The Cordoba Iniatitive”? My God, do people not understand that between the eighth and fifteenth centuries, Arab Muslims conquered and occupied first all, then parts of Spain? (While Christians retook Cordoba in 1236, Muslims held on in Grenada until 1492). Muslims conquered by the sword. They forcibly converted [13] many of the existing Christians and Jews. Under Islamic rule, or under Shari’a law, both Christians and Jews were considered civil inferiors, sub-humans. Muslims routinely massacred them.

Yes, there was a flourishing, a flowering of civilizations in Spain (Al-Andalus); some Caliphs were kind, others were exceedingly cruel. Science, architecture, and poetry ruled too. But the “glorious” flowering was the product of bloody Islamic imperialism and colonialism. It is not the best choice of what to name this new, allegedly peaceful and harmonious Ground Zero Mosque/Center.

Alyssa Lappen [14] has characterized Imam Abdul Rauf as a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated extremist who, like Tariq Ramadan, practices taqiyya (disinformation). Abdul Rauf has said that “Osama bin Laden was made in the USA…because U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11.” According to Lappen, Imam Abdul Rauf is not convinced that “Muslims” really attacked the World Trade Center. Lappen discusses the various countries and groups that have funded Abdul Rauf’s work, e.g., funding from Qatar. She points out that the Islamic Center/Mosque of New York has been funded by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Libya—not bastions of freedom, not lovers of Zion or of the Big Satan.

http://donkeyod.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/9-11-a.jpg

9/11

Bret Stephens, in the Wall Street Journal [15], has challenged Imam Abdul Rauf with a series of questions that should be put to him and to any other Muslim cleric with whom one engages in “interfaith dialogue.” I can only repeat these questions which must be put to Imam Abdul Rauf and to any other Muslim cleric with whom one engages in interfaith dialogue in these times:

Who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, and what was their religion?

Are suicide attacks or other forms of violent jihad acceptable under any circumstances, including against American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?

Do (you) agree with the State Department’s designation of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations?

What aspects of Shariah law, if any, do (you) repudiate?

Will (your) center invite the input and participation of Muslim gay and lesbian groups?

Do (you) consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be extreme?

What influence will any foreign funding of Cordoba House have on its programs or on the literature it distributes?”

Have all the Jews and Christians who support the Mosque at Ground Zero asked Imam Abdul Rauf these questions? I suggest they do so. And, one more thing. Read M. Zuhdi Jasser’s excellent and moving piece “Mosque Unbecoming” here. [16] Jasser opposes “Islamism”–and he opposes the presumptiousness, the heartlessness, of what Imam Abdul Rauf is planning for Ground Zero. Please read what he has to say.

Note: I want to thank “Yehuda” for his tip about Professor Gottsegen.

Article printed from Chesler Chronicles: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/05/27/waltzing-with-suicide-bombers-at-ground-zero-the-dangers-of-%e2%80%9cinterfaith-dialogue-%e2%80%9d/

URLs in this post:
[1] talking to and working with: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/09/12/arriverdeci-roma/
[2] all opposed: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/01/06/heroes-in-dark-times-the-human-rights-coalition-against-radical-islam/
[3] Board: http://www.cordobainitiative.org/board.html
[4] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Hirschfield
[5] same conference: http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/ci-news-archive
[6] Jimmy Carter: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2007/11/15/is_bible_teacher_jimmy_carter/
[7] listed: http://whois.domaintools.com/cordobainitiative.org
[8] quoted: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html
[9] Rabbi Marc Schneier: http://www.ffeu.org/RMS.htm
[10] Andrea Levin: http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/armstrong3.htm
[11] Iran was elected: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6292/pub_detail.asp
[12] condemned: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6916
[13] forcibly converted: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Islamic-Antisemitism-Sacred-History/dp/1591025540/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274987781&sr=8-2
[14] Alyssa Lappen: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler../../blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/
[15] Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264872544714414.html
[16] here.: http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7459/mosque-unbecoming

Copyright © 2010 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk