The msm are Liars Extrordinaire!

That is ALL they are!

Liars
Liars
Liars

FOAD!

blech

(too slow for #1)

Berosus mentions our father Abram without naming him, when he says thus: "In the tenth generation after the Flood, there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skillful in the celestial science." But Hecatseus does more than barely mention him; for he composed, and left behind him, a book concerning him. And Nicolaus of Damascus, in the fourth book of his History, says thus: "Abram reigned at Damascus, being a foreigner, who came with an army out of the land above Babylon, called the land of the Chaldeans: but, after a long time, he got him up, and removed from that country also, with his people, and went into the land then called the land of Canaan, but now the land of Judea, and this when his posterity were become a multitude; as to which posterity of his, we relate their history in another work. Now the name of Abram is even still famous in the country of Damascus; and there is shown a village named from him, The Habitation of Abram." ( Long before mohammad the world had Josephus and before him the world had Moses) Have mercy...all this killing for a man-who came long after!

As long as the Palestinians keep pretending that they are offering peace, they, and their MSM pals will use that fantasy to demonize Israel.

There’s nothing new here at all. It’s the same old package of absolutist Palestinian demands.

Yes, but they just said it (again) today. That makes it new, nu?

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward [a] all his brothers." Gen 16:12...This was not the man of Promise...But it sure fits the followers of Mohammad.

Details Details - don't you understand? Abbas, and every idea he has, is moderate! Based on that, the press attaches whatever ideas they think their readers will think are moderate to any proposal he has. If he says "Mr. Amadmanonjihad, please nuke Israel", he is calling for restraint. The decoder ring is available at [Link: www.reuters...]
/YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! - AP Editor

Sorry, but I see a big change -

based on the historical right of our people on the land of the fathers and grandfathers

which is a big change from

fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers

This is a moment of great historical progress.

Here's a thought: what if Hamas runs its own referendum in parallel with Abbas's?

Something like: "Resolved: that the Palestinian people have an absolute right to a homeland in all of their historical territory, running from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan river and beyond, and that the armed struggle against interlopers and infidel appropriators of Palestinian and Muslim land must continue until the land is free of all such unbelievers."

How big a margin do you think that one would pass by? And how would the MSM spin its passage?

WASHINGTON -- Iranians are going for the gold - at least until someone else cuts them off.

To forestall an effort by the West to seize Iranian assets in Europe, the Iranian leadership decided last fall to begin a massive, secret repatriation of its international currency reserves, according to Central Bank of Iran documents.

The documents were obtained by an Iranian opposition group and shared with Newsmax.

The documents detail eight shipments in chartered jumbo jets from Zurich's Kloten airport. The shipments, from October through late November, brought 250 tons of gold bullion from the vaults of Swiss banks to Tehran.

The gold was purchased by Bank Markazi (the Central Bank of Iran) from Credit Suisse in Zurich, the documents showed.

Three of the eight flights attracted the attention of amateur aircraft spotters, because the planes were painted in the distinctive livery of Iran Air, which rarely flies into Zurich.

[Link: www.newsmax.com...]

The AP lie!?!? But... but... but...

Give me a break

What kind of break would you like?

#10 storemanager

"brought 250 tons of gold bullion from the vaults of Swiss banks to Tehran."

Well, so much for trying to put economic sanctions on them.

There is only one thing that can be put on them, that will be certain to work!

While on the topic of THE BIG LIE,
please note that the big Al Qaeda claim to have taken the Somali capital is starting to get some critical examination.

Example 1 -

The militia's growing power has raised fears that Somalia could fall under the sway of al-Qaida. But Tuesday's protests show it may be difficult to keep control of the capital, and that the Courts Union likely still has to negotiate with the clan leaders who have run the city for more than a decade.

Example 2

MOGADISHU (AFP) - Heavily armed Islamic gunmen and fighters loyal to a US-backed warlord alliance faced each other in a tense standoff in Somalia after Muslim militia claimed control of the lawless capital.

A day after the Islamists declared victory following four months of bloody battles with the alliance for control of Mogadishu, the city was fractured along clan lines with remaining warlords vowing not to bow to demands to surrender.

So what has changed? Little, except for an Islamist claim of victory, which the MSM is only too happy to trumpet as a defeat for Bush.

They are quick to pronounce as fact any claim of progress the enemy makes, and quick to dismiss any progress the US reports.

The Euros will love it when that transmorgifies itself into:

the Muslim people in the homeland and in the Diaspora seek to liberate their land and to achieve their right in freedom, return and independence and to exercise their right in self determination, including the right to establish their independent state with Andalusia as its capital and on all European territories occupied since 800 A.D. and to secure the right of return for the refugees and to liberate all prisoners and detainees based on the historical right of our people on the land of the fathers and grandfathers and based on the UN Charter and the international law and international legitimacy.

And it will.

Don't you know the Palestinians support a 2-state solution and gay marriage (if they survive the stoning of course)

Just saw another mass of inhumanity slithering out of a Canadian courthouse. Those burka chicks were back.

And (gasp!) the poor misunderstood would-be headchoppers aren't being allowed to pray (wink, wink) together.

The horrors.

The defense establishment accused Hamas of direct involvement in Tuesday's barrage of Kassam rockets on the southern city of Sderot, with security officials threatening to target anyone involved in anti-Israel terror activity, including Hamas officials.

"The IDF will not hesitate to target and assassinate any Palestinian involved in Kassam rocket fire, even if they belong to Hamas," a senior defense official said.

The official noted that the defense establishment had received intelligence indicating that Tuesday's attacks were perpetrated by Hamas, which since a 2005 ceasefire announcement had mostly abstained from direct involvement in terror attacks.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

#17 JWF

And (gasp!) the poor misunderstood would-be headchoppers aren't being allowed to pray (wink, wink) together.

You know what they say, the [bigoted word]s that pray together slay together.

The "alternative" media is even worse. The moonbat radio producers at Between al-Lines featured an interview with Israeli draft-dodger Josh Ruebner. The money quotes:
"Recognition of Israel is a red herring because Israel already exists, whether Hamas chooses to recognize it or not."
and
What about Israel's refusal to recognize the national aspirations of the Palestinian people?

The usual crap ignoring the inconvenient truths that the aspirations and people who didn't exist as Palestinian before 1964, and choosing not to recognize Israel means the people there are illegally invaders on "Palestianian" land and must be destroyed.

Fuck the AP, may they all rot in hell, evil jew hating spawn of hitler.

#15 SMS - What I love is the fact that all those nations espousing the religion of peace and who cry and tear their sack cloths over their poor "Palestinian" brothers keep them penned in those crowded camps instead of just welcoming them in and giving them citizenship. I'd pay good money to see just one reporter from the MSM tackle that enigma and ask the obvious question.

Charles is right. There is absolutely nothing in the plan calling for a two-state solution. That means that either
(a) the AP has not read the plan, and is just making things up, by exaggerating the weasel statements made by others, or
(b) they are lying outright.
I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are completely ignorant of the plan and have not read it.

Also, the plan does not mention the road map.

The plan is based IMO on the phased plan adopted at the 12th session of the Palestinian National Council at Cairo on June 9, 1974:
[Link: www.netaxs.com...]

Here is article 2 of this 10-article phased plan:

2. The Liberation Organization will employ all means, and first and foremost armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian territory and to establish the independent combatant national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated. This will require further changes being effected in the balance of power in favour of our people and their struggle.

And this needs to be understood in connection with article 3 of this phased plan:

3. The Liberation Organization will struggle against any proposal for a Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition, peace, secure frontiers, renunciation of national rights and the deprival of our people of their right to return and their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland.

That is, the PLO will take whatever land they can get -- "every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated" -- and refuse recognition, refuse peace, refuse secure frontiers, demand their "national rights" meaning all of the territory from the river to the sea, demand a "right to return" which means the flooding into Israel of millions of hostile Arabs who were not born in Israel (descendants of descendants of descendants).
And see article 4:

4. Any step taken towards liberation is a step towards the realization of the Liberation Organization's strategy of establishing the democratic Palestinian state specified in the resolutions of previous Palestinian National Councils.

This refers to all previous resolutions of the PNC, including its covenant, which states in the PLO covenant's article 2:

Article 2: Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British Mandate is an indivisble territorial unit.

This shows its appetite for territory. As commented in the book Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter,
"This suggests that Palestine should not be separated into a Jewish and an Arab state, but rather should be one regional unit, including the West Bank, Gaza, and the states of Jordan and Israel."

The main point that Charles made is exactly right. The plan does not even consider, does not ever mention, any 2-state solution.

The statement made by the AP is false. I would suggest that somebody there, the reporter covering this and/or the editor for this reporting, should take the time and actually read the plan.

#23 EE

Charles is right.

Correct.

There is absolutely nothing in the plan calling for a two-state solution.

That's where you have to explain the reality on the ground. It's not obvious to those not paying attention that returning to the pre-1967 borders and allowing unlimited Arab immigration (a.k.a. "right of return") will insure the demise of the State of Israel. That needs to be explained to a lot of people. So this has a veneer of credibility. But the Arabists at AP know better.

I have a different take on this. Assume Fateah and Hamas are the genocidal a-holes we think they are. Abbas has actually done a very smart thing that is good for his people.

The war has drained the Palestinians. Most Israelis live their lives without much though to the fact that they are coming up on the sixt year of the war.

Yes the prisoner's charter is deeply flawed. The Palis are having a hard time admiting they lost their war.

But it also does an amazing thing- it forces Hamas to cease their terror war against Israel. Hamas, PIJ and All-asshole martyr brigades always claimed they acted in the name of the Palestinian people. If the referendum passes and a JPOST article today claims a PA news interviewer could not find one person on the street against it, it allows the Palestinian terror groups to bow to the will of the people.

Israel will at some point present a treaty that requires cease fire (not slow down)AND disarming the milita/terror groups AND explicit recognition. Terror attacks to derail the process will be done against the will of the people.

This thing might pass by 90% or more. If Israel is smart they will require in their negotiations that the Palis hold referenda on any future agreements. When the Palestinians in Gaza and the WB tell the world they recognize israel, it does shut up the Islamists. What right do they have to demand the people there die when they made a decision they no longer want to pawns in larger war.

The Palis took themselves down into a very deep hole. They are looking for a road that leads out of the pit. As I noted a few weeks back, I advocated Abbas holding a referendum a year ago. If he had, the Gaza pullout and the election of Hamas might have gone much differently.

Hamas is upset because they never wanted to be responsible for anything other than Jihad.

The Palestinian people have other ideas; who will be most POed if the referendum passes? Iran; they had high hopes of using Hamas as a little Hezbollah.

The charter is deeply flawed but if its functions are controlled to bring the right result, it can be a path to progress.

A variation on Reagan is required- verify, check again, verify some more, keep you gun on the bastard and trust him as long as you can see their hands.

This is not Oslo, I wish Sharon were able to manage the details, I trusted him more than Olmert but this is change that can become a path towards greater Israeli security. The Palestinians lost the war and they knwo they are settling for less. There are many demons in the details. Abbas has read the vox populi and they are saying 'no mas.'

What the plan does call for is coordination of the "resistance" -- meaning the terrorism.
Here is article 10 of this plan put forward by the terrorist prisoners in Israeli jails:

10 - to work on forming a unified resistance front under the name "Palestinian resistance front" to lead and engage in resistance against the occupation and to unify and coordinate action and resistance and to form a unified political reference for the front.

There is no renunciation of violence in this. The plan just seeks to bring more order into the terrorist activity, by having better coordination.

[T]he deprival of our people of their right to return and their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland.

Now, if I only knew where the "Palestinian homeland" actually was, I wouldn't deprive them of any right to return there.

And besides, the "right to determination on the soil of their homeland" is something the Jews have been asking for for years. The "right of return" belongs to the Jews, not these freaks.

Done preaching to the choir.

#24 Earth2moonbat
You are right that there is a poison pill in this to kill Israel: the demand for a right of return.

If the millions of hostile Arabs, who are descendants of descendants of descendants of people who were in Israel for a mere 2 years prior to Israel's declaration of independence -- which is how the "refugees" are defined by the UN -- are able to flood into Israel, the result would mean the death of Israel as a Jewish state. First, there would be a civil war, and there would be an immense amount of terrorism, that would make Intifada II seem like a picnic. Secondly, because of the superior birth rate of the Arabs, Israel would demographicaly become an Arab state. It would surely mean the death of Israel as a Jewish state.

That is the most important thing that Israelis need to know about this plan put forward by the terrorist prisoners in Israeli jails. The end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The second most important thing that Israelis need to know about this plan is that there is no renunciation of violence; there is a plan to coordinate the terrorism.

Right of return, 1967 borders, free all prisoners, Jerusalem as Palestinian capital...

Strictly these are not all a million miles off. Right of return would be very limited and East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital would take a lot of convincing. For now those two look like non-starters.

The prisoners will almost all be freed eventually and some are invariably freed in negotiations.

As for 1967 borders, any peace agreement would be rooted in something similar and equivalent. Israel should consider the 1967 borders more-or-less on the cards, settlements and alternatives notwithstanding, or else Israel was never serious about peace. Israel should come to this conclusion well ahead of any Quartet.

The the major groups, AAMB, PIJ, PFLP and Hamas, have had open coordination and mutual support agreements in place for years.

Frequently attacks would use assets from multiple groups.

Functionally the referendum is on one thing and one thing only- ending the war or not.

They will not get aid unless they do cease fire so there is only upside if they vote yes AND cease fire.

I am not some dreamy eyed fool; I know my enemy, they are to be measured solely by their actions. If they vote for the referendum and stop shooting rockets over the border, the referendum is about a cease fire. If they vote and the terror goes up it isn't.

On the off chance it is the former and not the latter, Israel won't be relaxing security but if they see a slacking off of violence and rockets leading up to the referendum, they may cut back on targeted killings and shelling so that Israel is not cause for the thing not goign through.

People have pride, it is hard for them to say, "whoa dudes we really effed up and we got a little crazy with the bus bomb attacks and shooting the baby through the head with the sniper rifle." So their leaders, who are right where they belong, in jail, concocted a masterpiece of doublespeak to give Hamas and the terror leaders the political words for the actual deed.

The referendum could say Godzilla is a big green monster; how it changes Palestinian behavior is the key. This is a Palestinian unilateral cease fire if they make it so. The language of the referendum is what they do. Israel and the US and even the EU will not relax the cutoffs without behavioral changes (cease fire).

I know, it isn't how Americans do things but if they were Americans they wouldn't have destroyed their coutnry in a pointless war and blown every chance at peace handed to them.

I am pretty sure I am right on this. Time really will tell.

29 Dom
Why do you assume that "right of return" would be "very limited"? The plan does not say that.

#28 EE

If the millions of hostile Arabs, who are descendants of descendants of descendants of people who were in Israel for a mere 2 years prior to Israel's declaration of independence -- which is how the "refugees" are defined by the UN -- are able to flood into Israel, the result would mean the death of Israel as a Jewish state.

And how do you verify that? A lot of people who don't qualify could still demand entry, and the burden of proof would be on Israel to show that they're not who they say they are. Essentially, knocking down the wall.

29 Dom

Israel should consider the 1967 borders more-or-less on the cards, settlements and alternatives notwithstanding, or else Israel was never serious about peace.

Wrong. The pre-1967 borders were arbitrarily drawn by the British, and are not sacrosanct. More importantly, they're militarily indefensible. The borders need to be defensible, and that needs to be the primary criterion for where they end up. Only Israel can be trusted to look out for Israel, and what they decide for borders is the only reasonable border possible. Precisely because the other side never did and never will want a two-state solution.

EE (#31),

I am referring to those four principles and what Israel might someday accept. I am pointing out that Israel could not object to assessing claims case-by-case and in fact I believe has already repatriated 250,000 people, but that there are no grounds to assert that most of today's Palestinians are refugees from Israel. So I am saying that Israel could accept a very limited right of return but that a full right of return really is a non-starter. Thanks for asking, sorry I wasn't clearer first time.

Olmert promised to Hamas all Judea and Samaria, promised to expel Jews, thanked Mubarak for spending an hour with him, promised to go kadima with "Road map" and so on, so forth.

Sharon gave Hamas and Al-Queda Gaza and did expel Jews.

And Israelis elected pensioners and Olmert "who proudly announced that he was tired of fighting and winning".

I wonder how these murderers managed to give this "document" to Abbas from Israeli prison?
Who provided them with opportunity to put this junk together?

Arabs are winning.

Did GWB say that whoever support terrorists...?

Looks like Olmert now becomes the biggest supporter and enabler of terrorism.

When was the plo founded? Oh yea...BEFORE 1967. Inbred liars then and now. Inbred…think about that!

earth2moonbat (#33),

"Never will" is not part of being open to a negotiation such as Israel is. We disagree about that, because I say that fudging on 1967 is as unacceptable to the Palestinians as Palestinians demanding a massive right of return is to the Israelis. To think there would not be compromises is absurd. Having said that, Israel's security is vital and that is why I describe something "similar and equivalent" to the 1967 borders.

I can think of all kinds of other reasons why Israel should not be bound to hand it over, such as Egypt, and Jordan, but I am working on the premise that all those people who tell pollsters they desperately want a peaceful settlement are serious.

I don't suggest that Israel necessarily would achieve peace that way, so security is paramount, but Israel could have a clear conscience and give the Palestinians the opportunities they claim to want, and I believed Sharon saw this and so does Olmert.

29 Dom
There is no peace that will result from Israel returning to the lines of 1949-1967, the lines that led to the 1967 war, in which Israel's neck was a mere 9 miles wide. Surely you jest in suggesting that those fragile lines could ever sustain peace, and hold back Arab ambitions to get rid of Israel.
Here is what President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt said on May 27, 1967, 9 days before the start of the 1967 war:

Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.

Israel's fragile lines were very tempting, an attack to wipe out Israel seemed irresistible.
Here is what President ABdel Rahman Aref of Iraq said on May 31, 1967, 5 days before the start of the 1967 war:

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map.

For Israel to return to those lines -- Abba Eban called them the "Auschwitz lines" because they were so perilous for Israel -- would be suicidal for Israel.

Nobody seriously interested in peace could prescribe that Israel return to such dangerous lines.

Nor is there anything in the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan that even remotely suggests that those armistice lines should be political boundaries. On the contrary, the agreement itself specifically excludes the possibility that those lines should influence the determination of political boundaries.

There is a new development now with Iran pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map, to commit nuclear genocide. For Israel to concentrate its population by withdrawing its population to behind the 1967 lines would be to further tempt Iran to launch a nuclear weapon at Israel, because there would be much less of any "Country B" that could survive the attack, or to which the residents could flee an attack.

Another new development concerns the ranges of rockets that will be available to a Pali state. If Israel's neck is a mere 9 miles wide, as it would be for a retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, and with Israel in general having a very slim profile, these rockets could make life hell for the Israeli population.

No, a return to the 1949-1967 armistice lines would be not be a prescription for peace, but a prescription for war.

Regarding boundaries, everyone should read this article by Dr. Tashbih Sayyed, an American of the Muslim faith, who is a "sayyed" (a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, he has explained), and who writes about the folly of the plan of Israel's Ehud Olmert to give up Israel's territory in Judea and Samaria. It would be the best thing to happen to the global jihad, according to Dr. Sayyed.

Surely anybody who suggests such a dumb thing should think about the consequences for the war against the global jihad. It would immeasurably help the global jihad, and would be a very terrible thing to happen, for the free world.
[Link: www.muslimworldtoday.com...]

EE,

Thank you. The intention is to clarify what would be the closest thing Israel could offer. I referred to something similar and equivalent, and I wonder if anything would encourage Jordan to work with Israel on this. This is not much of an answer to your post but I have to rest and will sleep on what you wrote, which is well said.

Dom's point is very narrow regarding purpose, and omits the horrible, horrible side effects, and does not look at all at the effect on the global jihad. And the main thing that the free world is involved in at this time, the main grave concern, is the global jihad. Here is part of an article by Dr. Tashbih Sayyed, linked in #40, on Olmert's folly.

A Convergence of Terror

Good news appears to be on the horizon for the global jihad. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is ready to throw in the towel. He is determined to relinquish the historical Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria in order to appease those who are faith-bound to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. Of great significance, the Arabs are achieving their long-awaited goal of gradually reducing Israel to non-existence. It is remarkable that they are accomplishing this without as much as a promise of formally ending terrorist activities in addition to their continued refusal to even recognize the state of Israel. Moreover, they will be able to keep their primary goal alive, the destruction of the "Zionist entity" and the acquisition of all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

He writes of Islamist gains around the world.

These Islamist gains in the global jihad have helped establish the creatioin of a psychological environment of invincibility in the radical Islamist world. Arabs in Palestine have never been so confident of their success. Olmert's "Convergence" plan, which in reality is an expulsion plan, has further consolidated the belief that their campaign to destroy Israel is moving in the right direction. There is a feeling of euphoria among the radical Islamists that terrorism, which they call legitimate resistance against the "occupation" has clearly succeeded in achieving tis intended goal -- breaking the Israeli will.

When a doctor prescribes a medicine for a certain reason, it is essential to look also at the side effects, to see if the risks outweigh the desired gain.

Same with any policy that is proposed. One has to consider the risks also, not merely the nominal purpose.

The Olmert plan would be a disaster for the war against jihadist terror, because it would encourage jihadis everywhere.

Here is some more from the excellent article by Tashbih Sayyed, linked in #40, about some other risks Olmert's plan entails, that nobody has mentioned as far as I have been able to see.

Firstly, Olmert's Convergence plan will, without doubt, help Arabs and radical Islamists in a myriad of ways. In my biew, the most significant consequence of this plan will be the emergence of the Arab fifth column inside Israel. Convinced that their brothers on the other side of the fence are winning, many Arabs in Israel will work fearlessly to subvert the Israeli society. Such a conviction will serve to encourage and facilitate an escalation of terrorism against all Israelis.

Secondly, the plan will sow the seeds of discord within the Israeli society. The Israelis uprooted from the lands that were rightfully theirs, will form a very powerful block of citizens who will be distrustful of any peace plan. Such distrust will remain the cause of destabilization for a very long time.

Thirdly, giving away the Jewish lands which were regained after thousands of years of Jewish sacrifices will dishearten Israeli citizens, officers and soldiers of the IDF. It will amount to the dishonor of the many Israelis who perished as a result of years of Arab aggression and terrorism. It will demoralize the core of the Israeli defense forces, discouraging them from offering themselves for elite duties. In fact, many in the IDF have requested to not be a part of the latest expulsion plan.

Just a little bit more from Dr. Tashbih Sayyed's excellent article, linked in #40.
Dr. Sayyed, a Muslim who emigrated from Pakistan, and escaped from the Islamists there, knows about the Islamist mindset. Here are some key paragraphs of his excellent article, concerning the effect that Olmert's plan would have.

Most people realize that the Arabs do not want peace with Israel; they want Israel's complete and utter destruction. This is the only explanation as to why they launched an unrelenting campaign of terror against the Jewish state instead of accepting the Camp David summit in 2000, which promised them the entire Gaza Strip and 91 percent of the West Bank in exchange for full recognition of Israel and an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anyone with knowledge of the Islamist mindset would acknowledge that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Convergence plan will only serve to empower the Islamist terorists. The Arabs will gain control over the entire Gaza Strip, the West Bank and a portion of Jerusalem without recognizing Israel, and without putting an end to the ongoing terrorist attacks.

The Gaza and northern Samaria disengagement was seen by the Arabs as a reward for their terrorist campaign and resulted in the Hamas victory in the elections. Olmert's Convergence plan will also reinforce the radical belief that homicide bombings work. A Palestinian state established on the foundation that terror wins will be an armed and militant anti-Semitic state.

And here is an important paragraph concerning the terrible impact that Olmert's plan will have on the region.

Olmert's plan will further undermine U.S. efforts to establish democracy in the region by laying the foundation for an undemocratic, fascist Islamist state that will devote itself to the destruction of the only working democracy in the Middle East -- Israel. A Palestinian state will destroy all chances of a permanent regional stability. An Islamist state that causes the subjugation of Zionism will naturally become an inspiration for the radical Islamists in countries like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunis, Morocco and Algeria. Olmert's plan will lead to a destabilization of the Middle East, pose a serious threat to Jordan and threaten US interests throughout the Arab world. It will, without doubt, create a large, terrorist infrastructure in a region where we are trying to achieve peace.

Another lie that one frequently finds in the media is that the prisoners' document implicitly recognizes Israel's "right to exist." By no stretch of the imagination does it do so; at most it recognizes the fact of Israel's existence.

The most important thing about the prisoners' document is that, by assigning PNA security forces the roles of "confronting the aggression and the occupation" and addressing "the need to coordinate and organize the relation with the forces of resistance and organize and protect their weapons," it repudiates the abandonment of violence that Arafat promised in 1993.

what about Jewish right to self determination, Freedom and to live life in a Jewish homeland that we were living in before Militant Islam took over... We Jews want the right to return home and live in peace, happiness and democracy in Israel.

Wait, now the Palestinians are claiming to have their own disapora? and they capitalize it too? oh please, they're already in palestine. And the arabs that didn't leave hoping their neighbors would get murdered are still living in Israel safe and sound.

I am not sure there is a big strategic difference, regarding pre-1967 borders or including a strip of West Bank, that could not be overcome in partnership with Jordan. Israel cannot make assumptions about the right to land that are based on fear, and therefore is in no position to declare permanent borders that are primarily strategic but Israel does need the strategic advantage against Arab aggressors. I just believe that Israel needs to keep offers on the table similar to what has been offered in the past which in my view does suggest something similar and equivalent to 1967 borders, consistent with Israel's position that Israel makes peace offers while Arafat only ever made threats, and I think that the more Israel can accomplish unilaterally the better.

What Israel's allies think is obviously important because they must stay on board, but what Israel's enemies think is less important. Most important is whether Israelis continue to suffer the culpability, internally and among erstwhile allies, for the failure of the Palestinians to accomplish anything that will make life better, such as Jordan has benefitted strategically, economically and politically from acknowledging and working with the State of Israel.

If Israel did that and withdrew from almost all that land, the claims of the worldwide jihad would be self-evidently totally hollow and the Arabs would have absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing that they could sling against Israel and would (not that they would necessarily show any grace whatsoever) have every reason to be grateful and acknowledge Israeli goodwill, and if that were not clear to them it would be clear to everyone watching, and Israel is so close to that, that I cannot bear Israel coming up with reasons not to enjoy that respect and support and pride.

If the Arabs continue to attack when Israel has done everything for the sake of creating a workable Palestinian state, Israel has a free hand to fight an all-out war with whosoever dares.

It seems almost all agree that the Right of Return as defined by the Arabs is the biggest obstacle to peace. Israel can never agree to letting 4+ million hostile Arabs inside her borders as citizens and survive. But I have a plan to allow full ROR and still let Israel exist as a Jewish State. Please bear with me as I explain.

The Arabs demand full ROR in order for there to be peace. ROR means ALL refugees are to be returned to Israel according to the Arabs. Even if these Arabs only lived in Israel 2 years prior to them becoming refugees, they are to be returned. The biggest problem is the 4+ million descendants of these refugees that have never set foot inside of Israel in their lives.

All the refugees in the world (except of course the Palestinians because they are "special") have a UN relief organization, UNHCR. The Palestinians have their very own UN refugee organization, UNRWA, that has different rules as to what constitutes a refugee. Under UNRWA, all descendants of refugees become refugees, but under UNHCR, the children born after fleeing are not refugees.

So what we need to do is eliminate UNRWA and the special rules that enable the Palestinians to ALWAYS turn down peace proposals because the longer they wait, the greater their numbers for conquest. If the Palestinian refugees operated under the same rules as every other refugee on the planet, there would be less than 60,000 Palestinian refugees and the youngest would be almost 60 years old. Israel could agree to full ROR of this group as long as they don't bring their families. Compensation should be provided for those amongst this group that don't want to return. Since few would return and those that would are past their prime reproducing age, the demographic nightmare is eliminated.

At every opportunity, we should point out that the entire world operates under one refugee standard and the Palestinians have their own with special rules.

We should fight to end UNRWA. Not only does this organization prevent peace, it is blatantly unfair and biased. If we could get rid of UNRWA and place all the Palestinian refugees under UNHCR, there would be less than 60,000 refugees and their numbers would continue to shrink the longer they held out.

Someday I am going to do a post where I link to the UN documents and make this a formal appeal. But until then, if we can just get this information out there, maybe we can get the ball rolling.

BIG,

Thanks man.

Dom
At Munich, the international community agreed to give Hitler a piece of Czechoslovakia. They thought that that would satisfy Hitler, and that he would then leave everyone alone. Of course Hitler's ambitions went far beyond getting a piece of Czechoslovakia. Giving Hitler a piece of Czechoslavakia didn't satisfy Hitler in the least, but it convinced the Germans that maybe Hitler wasn't crazy after all, maybe he knew what he was doing.

In the situation with the Hamas regime and the territory it rules, you suggest that Israel turn over territory that was never ruled by any Hamas regime, and that was never part of any Palestinian state in the last few hundred years. It was ruled for about 400 years by the Ottoman Turkish Empire based on their conquest; for about 3 decades by the British based on their victory in WWI and based on the mandate given Britain by the League of Nations; for almost 2 decades by the Kingdom of Transjordan/Jordan based on the victory of Abdullah's troops and British officers including John Glubb as commander; and for almost 4 decades by Israel as a result of its victory in the 1967 war.

So how did the Hamas regime get the right to rule this territory? They didn't get that right at all.

If Israel made Judea and Samaria cleansed of Jews -- or Judenrein as the Nazis called it -- and removed all of their troops from there, that would not satisfy Hamas at all. If you read the Hamas covenant, they want all of the territory that Israel has, not just a part of it. They do not want Israel to exist, period.

When a doctor prescribes a medicine, he has to consider not only the symptom for which the medicine is being prescribed, but also the risks, the side effects.

By giving up this territory, Israel would gain nothing at all, but would reduce its security. To get an idea of some of the other risks and side effects that doing this would cause, read the excerpts of Dr. Tashbih Sayyed's article that I have posted in #42, 44, and 45.

Well, that's not quite right. By doing that, Israel would gain your good will toward Israel, according to what you wrote. But the hazards, and the risks, and the likely war that would result, the encouragement of jihadists all around the world, the destabilization of Jordan, the demoralization of Israelis, the reduction of Country B (that would survive a nuclear attack from Iran) (which would give further encouragement to Iran to attack), the hardship of displacing a quarter of a million people from their homes and communities (who live east of the 1949-1967 armistice line but who have committed the crime of being Jewish), the putting of much of Israel within range of the rockets that the Hamas state would acquire, the 9-mile-wide neck that would invite being cut by future Arab armies -- all that has to be weighed against the gain of your good will by giving up the territory.

EE,

I don't think it makes as much difference as that to the jihadis or to Israel's defense, like I said maybe Israel can work with Jordan on the defense front, basically flood the Jordanian side of the border with IDF positions or something to that effect. The IDF has already given the Jordanians a lot of support on the border with Saudi Arabia so it seems within the realms of possibility. The main gain would be to know that Israel had settled whatever it had acknowledged was outstanding, and the post-1967 borders are the only real outstanding thing. Otherwise Israel is feigning the will to reach a compromise. I say just do it, and if Israel needs to take military action after that it will be the most morally legitimate war ever. I can't say that as long as Israel is not first willing to pull back to something similar and equivalent to the 1967 border. And hey, maybe Hamas will give us a surprise of the pleasant variety.

Dom
You wrote, in part:
"Most important is whether Israelis continue to suffer the culpability, internally and among erstwhile allies, for the failure of the Palestinians to accomplish anything that will make life better,..."

I don't understand how it is Israel's fault that the Arabs have made the choices that they have made. You write about "culpability", blame. They have made their choices, and that is not Israel's fault.

On May 15, 1948, the day 5 Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, the secretary general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated:

This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

Israel had no choice but to defend itself, and to prevent that attempted "war of extermination" and "momentous massacre".

The war against Israel continues, and to blame Israel for defending itself is to ignore a state's basic right of self-defense. The choices that the Arabs have made are mostly terrible, but they have to be accountable for their own choices.

Dom
" the post-1967 borders are the only real outstanding thing"
No. Read the Hamas covenant. According to Hamas, Israel has to be wiped out, eliminated.

According to Hamas, the land was once conquered by Muslims, and therefore, according to Muslim law, it remains forever a Muslim trust for all generations until the end of time. It cannot be ruled by non-Muslims.

You are deceiving yourself if you think that any adjustment of territory is going to change the basic objective of Hamas.

This kind of talk is similar to the talk at Munich prior to WWII. Just give some territory to Hitler, a piece of Czechoslavakia is all that he is demanding, and everything will be ok. Well, you don't really understand the demands of Hamas. If you read the Hamas covenant, Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction. That is more than a territorial issue, and no adjustment of territory is going to appease them. It will only whet their appetite and convince them that terrorism is the way to get results.

Dom
For your reading pleasure, here is the Hamas covenant.
[Link: memri.org...]

Before you assume that Hamas' demands are appeasable, you need to know what it is that they want. The covenant makes it clear that it is a religious principle of theirs that Israel has to be eliminated. Completely. No non-Muslim rule in what they consider to be a Muslim trust unto eternity. That's not a territorial issue at all, but an issue of existence.

I understand, most Arabs hate Israel, Arabs have tried to exterminate Israel and are likely to try again, but I am talking about a moral and independent assessment of who can claim the land, and how the Palestinian situation should be resolved. I am not just being dovish and I don't see the difference as being a Czechoslovakia, it is a stategically slight difference and Israel is lumbered with a huge responsibility it could do without. I know that if Olmert wants to declare the borders a fait accompli and withdraws to something similar and equivalent to 1967, then he will have done all that could possibly be expected of him. The IDF can work it out so that doesn't mean suicide, if Israel, chas v'shalom, needed a B state it would be time to claim the frickin' Sinai back (better start running that past a few Egyptians, see how that affects Egyptian-Iranian affairs). A few more settlements on the West Bank isn't an effective B state. As far as I'm concerned Israel can withdraw and if there is not an immediate Palestinian peace they can J-Dam the Palestinian government. Maybe then they would understand this was never about rewarding terror and was always about peace and security and they blew it.

What the Hamas covenant says means that as long as it says that Israel will have to do these things unilaterally or at least without Hamas.

Dom
That is a new one. Give up land, and get moral superiority. If Israel gave up all of the land on which it exists, it would, by your principle, have utmost moral superiority; but it wouldn't exist. In any case, neither the PLO nor Hamas, nor Islamic Jihad, has indicated that Israel has the right to exist. Therefore, I don't see why Israel is morally indebted to people who want to exterminate her.

I don't understand why the victim of an attempt to annihilate Israel -- and that has been the situation since Israel's independence as a state -- is morally indebted to those who want to murder her. As far as I can see, Israel has no moral debt to those who want to annihilate her.

So, according to your reckoning, a quarter of a million Jews must be thrown out of their homes and communities to satisfy someone's sense that Israel is morally indebted to those who want to annihilate her?

Dom
I think that you have discovered a technique for resisting the global jihad. Israel should give up the territories in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in which a quarter of a million Jews live, and gain moral superiority after making that territory Judenrein. India should give up its Kashmir territory, and expel the Hindus living there, and gain moral superiority. Russia should give up Chechnya, and gain moral superiority. The Phillippines should give up those territories that the jihadis are demanding, expelling the non-Muslims living there, and gain moral superiority. And so on, all around the world.

I think that that is called surrender. And it is called ethnic cleansing, in most cases, including the case of the quarter million Jews living in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. It will not stop the global jihad. It will only encourage the jihadis to escalate their jihad.

Like I said, similar and equivalent. I'm not talking about 250,000 evictions. I think Dennis Ross makes a fair assessment of both our positions, and I accept that my ideal is not matched by any goodwill on the part of Hamas, and on top of what I've said I don't have much to add at this point. I put the rough idea into writing to satisfy a bunch of Muslims I was talking to that Israel is serious about peace, and it only made very slight headway. Having said that I think I have represented an authentic Israeli position to them and further developments notwithstanding I am representing the same position here and acknowledging it is not cut-and-dried and at pains not to alienate someone like yourself who I relate to very much. That was why I appreciated the summary in the link above.

Dom
You wrote:
"I'm not talking about 250,000 evictions".

Well, there are about 125,000 Jews living in Jerusalem east of the 1949-1967 armistice line, and about another 125,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria east of the 1949-1967 lines. What would happen to them?

EE,

Thank you for the detailed replies.

EE,

I propose we give thought to that in the context of what I have said already.

Dom
If they are turned over to the tender mercies of the Hamas terrorists, they are as good as dead.

Dom
Where in that article by Dennis Ross that you linked to does he propose that Israel retreat to the 1949-1967 armistice line? I didn't see it. It seems to me that you proposed that, or approximately that, but I don't see where Ross proposed that.

EE,

He didn't, he spoke about further Israeli retreats that he considers very likely and supported by most Israelis and he spoke of the global response to Hamas.

Dom
Ross deals with political realities, and as you know the government of Israel is not in favor of Israel's retreating to the 1949-1967 armistice lines. Of course, neither is Likud nor the other parties that are likely to be in any governing coalition if the Kadima party falls. So it is unrealistic to think that an Israeli government is going to agree to retreating to what Abba Eban called the "Auschwitz" lines -- the frail lines of the 1949-1967 armistice lines.

So I still have no reason that I can fathom why you think that the terrorist prisoners' demand that the Palis get all of the territory east of the 1949-1967 armistice line with Jordan is in any way reasonable, or is something that Israel could ever agree to. And the question of what would become of the quarter of a million Jews living there simply goes unanswered (they would be slaughtered of course by the Hamas jihad terrorists).

Dom
If you get a globe of the world, you can trace out the territory of the Muslim world, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf and beyond. If you try to find Israel on that globe, it is just a speck, and you probably won't even find it shown on the globe.

The reason that the Islamists want to get rid of Israel is not that Israel is too large. It is relatively a speck, it isn't large at all. The reason they want to get rid of Israel, and are trying so hard to do so, is that Israel is so tiny, they feel that there just has to be a way to eradicate Israel off the map.

If Israel gives up territory, that is not going to make the Islamists want to stop trying to eradicate Israel, because the reason they wage war to annihilate Israel is Israel's small size. If Israel gives up territory, the only effect on the Islamists will be to make them even more enraged that they cannot wipe Israel off the map. They will just try harder.

EE,

I am aware of all this, and I am happy to be corrected on finer points, but you are missing my point about keeping alive the possibility of a peaceful resolution. I think for now we are bound to disagree, but you have sharpened me up a bit and I thank you for that.

Dom,
I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and I hope I haven't worn you out with some of my rants.

I want to ask your opinions on a serious, very serious matter, which I have not seen discussed anywhere at all.

I know that Israelis don't want to even think about some things, but I am not an Israeli, and I don't see why it should be a forbidden topic.

Suppose that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and uses them to carry out nuclear genocide against Israel. Millions of Israelis get annihilated. Will there be any survivors? I think yes.

The most likely targets, in my opinion, would be the same targets that Saddam Hussein targeted when he shot scud missiles at Israel in the first Gulf war: Tel Aviv and Haifa.

I don't think that Jerusalem is as likely to be a target, because the Jewish holy place at the Temple Mount is also a Muslim holy place.

I don't think that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are as likely to be targets, because they are relatively small, and there are lots of Arabs in the vicinity who would also get killed.

So the Jewish community of a quarter million people that live in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria east of the 1949-1967 armistice line are likely to be prominent among the survivors. These people, I think, would largely survive a nuclear attack. Although the devastation from a nuclear genocidal attack would be horrendous in terms of human lives lost, still it seems to be to be a worthwhile thing, from a humanitarian point of view, to save a quarter of a million people.

Also, there is the possibility that this quarter of a million people could, together with another few hundred thousand people living in the greater Jerusalem area west of the armistice line, help in the rebirth of Israel. Maybe you think that this is unlikely, but in 1948, the number of Jews who lived in Israel and defeated several Arab armies was merely a half million! So it is not an impossible thing, in my opinion. There could be a rebirth of Israel, phoenix-like, from the ashes of Iran's nuclear genocide.

This is an important matter from the point of view of deterring an attack from Iran. Because if the mullahs believe that their attack would forever end the possibility of Israel's existence, that would be a very strong, even irresistible force that would impel them to attack, and wipe out Israel once and for all. But if Israel could be reborn again, that could make them think twice about whether they should attack, and it might make them even think about consequences to Iran. In other words, the payoff wouldn't be as great to the Islamists of Iran, and the attraction of nuclear genocide might not be as great.

So in this chess game of wiping out Israel, the Islamists have to think a couple of moves ahead. If they can now get rid of what would be the remnant of survivors, they can assure themselves of a more effective nuclear genocide.

So the Islamists have to use every means to try to get rid of the quarter of a million Jews living in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria, east of the 1949-1967 armistice line. If they get the international community to agree to their demands for all of that territory, what would happen to the Jews living there? Clearly they would either be expelled or they would be annihilated by the jihadi terrorists. And for the Islamists, that would be mission accomplished, and would pave the way for Iran's nuclear genocide.

Dom, you wrote:
"my point about keeping alive the possibility of a peaceful resolution".

The terrorist-supporting plan put forward by the terrorist prisoners in Israeli jails does not keep alive the possibility of a peaceful resolution. On the contrary, its purpose is to keep terrorism alive.

(1) There is no mention in that document of a 2-state solution, no mention of 2 states at peace, no mention of peace at all, no mention of secure boundaries, no mention of the Quartet's Road Map, no mention of the first-stage obligation in the road map of "dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure", no mention of the Quartet requirements for dealing with the Hamas regime as anything other than a rogue regime (no mention of renouncing violence, no mention of recognizing Israel's right to exist, no mention of recognizing and honoring the past agreements between the Pali Authority and Israel), and no mention of renouncing the vows in the terror groups' covenants to destroy Israel.

(2) Rather than dismantling the terrorist capability and infrastructure, the document calls for coordinating "resistance" (meaning terrorism) against Israelis. They always call the terrorism "resistance". All of the terror groups would be joined together in a consolidated terror organization, so that the terrorism could be better coordinated.

(3) The document demands, in effect, an action that would lead to the expulsion or annihilation of a quarter of a million Jews. They are demanding all of the territory on which a quarter of a million Jews are presently living, an action which would lead to ethnic cleansing of a quarter of a million Jews. That's what the demand for all of the territory east of the 1949-1967 armistice line with Jordan amounts to: ethnic cleansing of a quarter of a million Jews.

(4) The document demands, in effect, the demographic destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, by flooding it with millions of Arabs who were not born in Israel. This would Lebanize Israel, lead to civil war, lead to terrorism on a massive scale, and due to the superior birth rate of the Arabs lead to Israel's becoming another Arab state. The end of Israel as a Jewish state.

This is most definitely not a document to "keep alive the possibility of a peaceful resolution". It is a plan to maintain and coordinate terrorism against Israel, to establish a base for war against Israel in accordance with the 1974 PLO phased plan for the destruction of Israel, and to eliminate Israel demographically.