Advertisement

Archive for Friday, October 12, 2007

Summit will undermine Israel

October 12, 2007

Advertisement

Name one concession Israel has made in recent years that has been reciprocated by its sworn enemies. This is not a trick question. There are none.

That's why next month's announced "Middle East Summit" in Annapolis, Md., should be viewed as one more installment payment in the sellout of Israel and of American interests in the Middle East. While the United States continues to struggle to shore up democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration - like administrations before it - proceeds in undermining the likelihood that the region's first democracy will endure.

At every negotiating session, Israel is pressured into making concessions for "peace" and receives more war in response. Mostly this is because of the wishful thinking in the West that has replaced sound policy. Why should the Palestinians make concessions when they are drawing closer to their objective of eradicating Israel by throwing stones and bombs and stonewalling negotiations?

In an address to the Israeli Knesset, President Shimon Peres reaffirmed the flaw in Western thinking: ": even if there are some who express doubt at the ability of the Palestinians to achieve peace, the impression must not be created that Israel has doubts regarding the need and the willingness to achieve full peace." So it's not about hard bargaining resulting in the preservation of Israel with defensible borders and the cessation of terrorist attacks, it's about "impressions"? No wonder Israel's enemies are emboldened as never before.

While details of a "joint declaration" by Israel and the Palestinians on a final status agreement remain secret, some information has leaked. One report has Prime Minister Ehud Olmert preparing to divide Jerusalem by allowing Arab East Jerusalem to come under Palestinian control. The holy sites, now administered by Israel and open to all (which was not the case when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem prior to 1967), would be internationalized.

For 40 years, Israel has provided security for the holy places. It is doubtful an international force would do as good a job protecting these sites from terrorists (think the Taliban and the destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and regular attacks on Christians, their churches and schools in heavily Muslim nations).

According to one report, "the drafters are planning to call for a withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 lines," thus making Israel more vulnerable than ever to heavily armed Arab states and Palestinian enemies and leaving it completely exposed to infiltration from the East. Does anyone doubt such infiltration would not occur? Would the United States come to the aid of Israel should it again be invaded? Probably not since that might hurt our "image" in the Arab world.

In all of this, the United States is trying to prop up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But Abbas is a figurehead, manipulated by the terrorist organization Hamas, which virtually controls the Palestinian territories thanks to democratic elections.

The real intentions of Israel's enemies can be summed up in the "phased plan" for the destruction of Israel expressed in 2000 by Palestinian Minister of Supply, Abd El Aziz Shahian: "The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land : for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution."

The "'65 Revolution" refers to the founding of the PLO and the publication of the Palestinian Charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel through armed struggle.

So, why is the United States hosting this sellout in Annapolis?

Comments

slappedyomomma 6 years, 6 months ago

2500 years later? That is news to me. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Jews still lived around there until about 135 AD. Only 1800 years. I know it is nit picking, but still. Besides, these Jews returned to "the promised land" because practically every country they were living in didn't want them.

0

Speakout 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, sure he is an idiot. He acts as though the Israelis are the victims. Get a grip. They invaded the Palestinian territories, saying it was theirs and made everyone think they were right. They control the media so that nothing negative can be written about the atrocities commited by Israelis. The Palestinians want their land back and if that means that Israel needs to shrink a little, well, too bad. I mean they took the land illegally anyway. How many UN Resolutions are there demanding that they return the land?

I must admit that the Israeli lobby in the USA is the strongest in America, strong enough to rewrite history? Even the Israelis know that taking the West Bank was a serious blunder and they have had millions of problems and thousands of deaths because of it. Now think about this: If someone took your land, said it was theirs, wouldn't you fight for it too? The modern Jew is not related to the Children of Israel. He (Israel) had 12 sons and the decendants of those sons are the Children of Israel. Read your Bible. They were scattered all over the world into the diaspora. Now, 2500 years later, Jews from Europe and America claim Palestine as theirs?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 6 months ago

"Why should the Palestinians make concessions when they are drawing closer to their objective of eradicating Israel by throwing stones"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Cal you are a bonafide idiot.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.