Doc's Talk: ANOTHER TACK: A new Mideastern religion

Saturday, August 07, 2010

ANOTHER TACK: A new Mideastern religion

http://www.sarahhonig.com/?p=635

Sarah Honig

It’s almost surreal to witness the White House resident and his European counterparts fall all over themselves in recharged alacrity for the “two-state solution.”

Do they even remotely believe their own words? Or do they just make obligatory sounds to satisfy the requisites of some bizarre rite? t’s a tad of a stretch to trust that it hadn’t dawned on any of them that the last thing Palestinians want is a Palestinian state dwelling in idyllic coexistence alongside a secure, accepted and recognized Israel. Honchos in both Ramallah and Gaza may expediently exploit the two-state slogan, but they never truly espoused the cause of two-state harmony.

All the while, though, the two-state mantra is fervently chanted by statesmen everywhere, eager to put in their two cents and repeat precisely what everyone else has been declaiming for years with the same seeming conviction and the ever-invigorated note of urgency. Global movers and shakers never tire of the worn old refrain, which they elevate to Gospel-like sanctity, with each futile reiteration.

This has all the hallmarks of the birth of yet another great extensively proselytized Mideastern religion. The idol worshiped by all and sundry is the two-state deity. Though its teachings aren’t feasible in the here-and-now, anyone who dares hint at skepticism is instantly pronounced a vile heretic. Dissenters are pilloried by the imperious clerics and impressionable disciples of the new international ecclesiastical assembly. The high absolutist authority tolerates no deviation from its unassailable dogma – the cramming of two adjoining states into the narrow strip of land between the Jordan and the Med.

This doctrinal article of faith envisions a perfect, all-encompassing solution to a problem that masses everywhere have been conditioned to focus upon, to the exclusion of all else that plagues humanity – the plight (supposed) of the (previously never-known) Palestinian people. With frequent reminders, the two-state premise gains priority in indoctrinated psyches. Memory is reinforced with each tendentious news report until the preaching becomes an axiomatic unassailable precept.

The new idol’s promised salvation is now unquestioned, obvious and overpowering. It’s a universal force. Two states are the way to go. High priests of the two-state sacrament must be revered and obeyed.

Anyone marked as marginally unenthusiastic faces the fire and brimstone of indignant censure. Foot-draggers, to say nothing of opponents, become the arch-adversaries. Compelling them to bow down before the two-state idol emboldens and validates the faithful. If they can coerce, they must be right.

TAKE THE case of Binyamin Netanyahu. For a long time, and valiantly against the odds, he poked holes in the burgeoning two-state creed. He became the doubters’ leader. Simultaneously, the pressure upon him grew unbearable. We don’t know if he buckled or cleverly tried to play for time, but he at last proclaimed his newfound devotion to the two-state divinity. Exasperatingly, however, his popularity overseas wasn’t thereby enhanced. He remains mistrusted, portrayed at best as an agent of delay if not altogether an intransigent holdout.

The enticement to crush the Israeli side’s perceived noncompliance is still powerful. Yet while all eyes are on Netanyahu, no one pays attention to the two latifundia of the split Palestinian Authority – Fatahland and Hamastan.

Mahmoud Abbas, figurehead chief of the former, is commonly perceived as the good guy, having won warm benedictions from zealous two-state theologians and from straggler new-believer Netanyahu. The Hamas bunch, now much less frowned upon, increasingly secures legitimacy and sympathy as champion of the oppressed underdogs.
But what ardent two-state devotees incredibly lose sight of is that both PA segments undermine the very two-state solution concocted to appease them. Netanyahu acquiesced to indirect talks for a while and froze all Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem to deny Abbas pretexts for not talking. Abbas nevertheless managed to scuttle George Mitchell’s mediation while ingeniously succeeding to paint Israel as obstructionist.

Though the Arab League gave Abbas the yellow light to resume direct contacts with Israel, his preconditions leave little doubt: Abbas is far from interested in furthering the two-state option. Among other demands, Abbas insists that the upcoming negotiations’ starting point be Ehud Olmert’s egregious offers – ironically the very ones Abbas rejected when Olmert proposed them. It’s as if Abbas fails to recognize that Olmert is out of power, that Israelis elected another government on another platform.

There’s no way Abbas doesn’t grasp that this is a nonstarter. Hence we must assume that his preposterous precondition is an intentional spanner in the works.

Next, Abbas demands that the outcome of the negotiations be fixed before they begin. He wants Israel to guarantee a return to the 1949 armistice lines, including in Jerusalem. He refuses any compromise, especially over territories he doesn’t control. He brazenly denied having agreed to “let the Jews keep” the Western Wall.

Since he knows he cannot prevent Hamas domination on the hilly terrain directly overlooking the soft underbelly that is Israel’s densest population center, Abbas knows the 1949 lines mean Israel’s suicide. This is a machine-busting super-spanner.

Another spanner is prior Israeli consent to the deployment of international forces along the border after Israel withdraws. Given our long sad experience with foreign “peace-keepers,” this is a prescription for Israeli paralysis. Abbas is out to make sure that Israel would be unable to defend its citizenry from terrorist predations unleashed literally next door. He deliberately flings monster-monkey wrenches (unless he sincerely supposes Israelis will obligingly slit their own throats).

Had he really yearned for the Palestinian state hallowed by the rest of the world, he’d keep his hands off the wrenches. But these aren’t conditions for talks; they are excuses for sabotaging talks.

Abbas is terrified of the two-state solution, just as his predecessor Yasser Arafat was and for the same reasons. He knows he’d have to declare the conflict ended and essentially forgo the “right” to inundate Israel with millions of hostile Arabs. He knows assorted Arab/Muslim autocrats would lose no time to brand him a traitor and that Hamas would rake in immeasurable political profit.

To boot, things are pretty nifty for him under the Israeli umbrella. Abbas’s mini-bailiwick gets greater cash donations from abroad than does big hard-luck Egypt. The IDF safeguards Abbas and his Fatah minions and the economy is booming. Does Abbas really want the Jews to disappear, while Lebanon and Syria unload millions of “refugees” upon him?

Even Hamas resorts to similar logic. Its mouthpieces shuddered at Avigdor Lieberman’s calls for a final disengagement from Gaza. Hamas falsely screams about continued Israeli occupation (although Israel fully vacated the Strip in 2005). In actual fact Hamas craves the “occupation” status quo. Why lose its ploy, give up a good deal and Israeli shekels?

It doesn’t take divine revelation to see this. But the world’s fanatic followers of the two-state faith can’t give up a good thing either.

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