Beyond the Cusp

February 28, 2019

Palestinian Authority Begging for World Support

 

The Palestinian Authority has begun their reaction to the presumably soon to be announce Trump “Deal of the Century.” Their fear is that any new deal might leave them on the outside peering through the window, if even that. In preparation for a worst case scenario, Riyad al-Maliki, the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) “foreign minister”, on Tuesday asked the UN Human Rights Council to take practical steps to protect the two-state solution. We have to give him credit; at least he knows where to find sympathetic receptions. He could have chosen any United Nations agency or the General Assembly and received all the promises he desires. Their promises are worthless, but they simply wanted to be told they were relevant and receive some stroking from friendly quarters. He wanted somebody to ensure justice for the Palestinian people. In that his insists that they give guarantees to the Palestinian people, whatever that actually means any longer, that they will be granted an independent Palestinian State with self-determination, something they do not have under Mahmoud Abbas, and they demand that they have their capital in Jerusalem. This they have been offered before by Israel more than once and turned it down, but they want the guarantee so they must receive the same offer again which they will refuse again. They also insist on the “right of return” for their five-million plus refugees to the very homes they were expelled from presumably resulting from the war to exterminate the Jews six Arab armies waged in 1948 upon the birth of the State of Israel. The reality is they left on the urgings of the Mufti who promised after Israel was destroyed they could share in the spoils but when they lost the war they placed those who listened to the Mufti in camps and they and their children and their children’s children and even further generations ever since. Their demands for this are based on, according to Riyad al-Maliki, UN Resolution 194.

 

The wording is very specific about the resolution of the problem of the refugees. It mentions nothing about their receiving a state nor does it mention Jerusalem as their capital city. It does not mention the word “Palestinians” but it does stipulate that the refugees were to be permitted to return to their homes providing they would, “live at peace with their neighbours,” which has been amply proven is not the case. Every survey taken of the Palestinian refugees which the Arabs have religiously incarcerated since 1948 in contrast to the way Israel treated the Jewish refugees from the Arab world who were evicted after being stripped of all wealth and sent with the shirts on their backs and little else. These Jews, over eight-hundred-thousand, had lived in these regions often since before the birth of Islam and some since before the birth of Jesus, but they had their homes, businesses, bank accounts and any other wealth confiscated, a nice word for stolen, and sent packing and unless they held a passport to another country, European or the Americas, they had nowhere to turn other than Israel who took them in, often going to get them by sea or by air, and they were incorporated into Israeli society, not locked away in camps for generations.

The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

In the ensuing fifty-plus years, their homes and even entire villages have fallen to Israeli growth and the natural changes a nation which has taken in hundred upon hundreds of thousands of Jews from around the world, many refugees, as noted above, were sent out impoverished by the Arab world spanning all of MENA* while others simply returned out of a desire to return to their ancient homelands. Had the world actually desired for Israel to succeed and survive, they would have treated the situation just as similar situations have been handled, by enacting a population transfer with the Jews going to Israel, over eight-hundred-million as refugees from the Arab world and over half a million who were refugees from Europe after World War II all added to the indigenous Jews who often could trace their genealogy back to King David while the Arabs were to be permitted to return to their nations of origin, be it Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and numerous other places from around the Arab world where these individuals from out of where they were recent immigrants. This was the solution used in Europe between numerous nations after World War II such as what occurred between Germany and Poland, as was done in Cyprus between the Greek people and the Turkish population, also the great migrations of Muslims to Pakistan and Hindus and Buddhists into India. Population transfers have occurred in every situation where two incompatible peoples were required to exchange populations to avert violence and other potential problems. In this case the problem was the Jews would have been exterminated by the Arab world if not expelled and in Europe many Jews no longer had homes to return to as they had been destroyed by the war or given to other people after the Jews were shipped to the concentration camps. In too many instances, if a Jew in Europe returned to their home town from before the war they were murdered rather than being allowed their homes and businesses being returned, their hometowns had assumed they were rid of them and had no need and did not wish to take responsibility for these now alien Jews. So, Israel took all the Jews the world did not want, Israel is not going to take in Arabs who have been steeped in anti-Semitism for half a century and bred to want the Jews of Israel dead. After all, there is that phrase in the resolution which goes, “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.” The Arabs are not desirous of living at peace with their neighbors in Israel, they desire killing their neighbors in Israel.

 

Another few items which the world conveniently ignores are equally at play in this problem. First is that there already is a nation whose population is predominantly Arab Palestinians and which was established for the Arab Palestinians, especially those who desired not to live near or with the Jews or with Jews ruling the nation, and this nation was granted 78% of the British Mandate and it is called Jordan. Israel is a mere 22% of the British Mandate as can be readily seen in the map below. This arrangement was easily recognized, as the Jordan River was to be the border between the Arab State and the Jewish State. That begs the question as to why that was not the case. Remember that war of extermination in 1948 we referred to above? Well, the Arabs did take control of some lands meant for Israel but Israel was not destroyed and her Jews killed, so the Arabs claim they won but not completely and the Jews claim they won as we survived. Historians refer to this war as Israel’s war of independence despite the fact that Israel had declared statehood under international law and the Arabs attacked with the intent, as stated so succinctly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League at that time who stated, “It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” Israel was founded under agreements including the San Remo Conference and other treaties agreed upon by the rulers of the Arab world under King Faisal, the former rulers of the Ottoman Empire which had been on the losing side of the war along with Germany and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the allied powers of World War I. The final nail in the Arab claims coffin comes from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly voted at the urging of the Palestinian Authority observer to request from the International Court of Justice a ruling on the legality of the Israeli terror wall, the wall which reduced suicide bombings to none within three years, with the hope of gaining a ruling which would lead to its dismantling such that the terrorist operations would not be hindered by the barrier. The barrier was cleared as being perfectly legal and within the rights of Israel as the sovereign over the region, but that was just the initial good news for Israel. In addition to being cleared of any wrongdoing, there was an advisory opinion issued as a cautionary warning by Egyptian Judge, Justice El Araby, from the ICJ and who sat in judgement as part of the panel which heard the case from the United Nations General Assembly in 2003 on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel. The Honorable Justice El Araby warned the UNGA and others that filing further ran some risks, as he stated,

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

 

British Mandate as prescribed division between Arab State of Jordan and Jewish State of Israel

British Mandate as prescribed division between Arab State of Jordan and Jewish State of Israel

 

Of course, we could argue the legal obligation to the Jewish People from signed treaties, conferences and even Article 80 of the United Nations Charter which obligates their enforcement of the Mandate Systems set up by the League of Nations, until we were all blue in the face and it makes no difference as the world refuses to enforce these obligations and instead works tirelessly towards the destruction of Israel as the home of the Jewish People and the Jewish State. Israelis largely are not so foolish as to expect the world to treat them fairly or to live up to their obligations. They are largely aware that the Europeans look at the formation of Israel as an error they made while not necessarily in their right minds and are working to undermine the Jews at every opportunity, well, most of them at least. Too many Israelis actually expect that the United States is and will forever remain their friend. We wish this were so but with the recent remarks by the newly elected Congress people, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the future may not be the sunny and bright bipartisan support with which Israel has grown accustomed. What many Israelis do not remember is that the United States did not fully support Israel in the manner they believe until after the Six Day War and actually starting in the early 1970s (below is the graph of aid to Israel by year from the United States). The claim has been to depict an ever-increasing amount of aid but the actual aid leveled off quickly and remained at the same level until the present. But this is a problem which needs to be faced in the future with the only variable being how far into the future. The current problem is more with the European Union and member nations along with every conceivable arm of the United Nations outside the world court system where laws actually mean something, as even an Egyptian Jurist tried to warn the Palestinian Authority.

 

United States Israel Aid (Military)

United States Israel Aid (Military)

 

One of the main goals stated by Mahmoud Abbas has been to “internationalize” the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was part of his new, but previously demanded, terms for moving forward with the peace talks adding it must be based upon the Arab peace plan. His demand for an international forum to decide the fate of Israel centers around his insistence that the forum be based on the United Nations General Assembly. A better way of putting this is that Abbas desires a group which will vote 109 to 12 with 56 abstentions in favor of anything the Arabs propose and against anything favoring Israel. By internationalizing the peace process, he wants to assure that he gets his own little kingdom and that Israel receives five to six million new citizens who must be granted full rights so they can elect whatever Arab leadership they desire at the next election. Another way of stating this is; Mahmoud Abbas wants his own nation and to destroy Israel too. Of course the European Union thinks this idea is just ducky, the United Nations would love nothing better than to decide the fate of Israel in the General Assembly, much of the dictatorships in the world are behind this internationalization of the Israel question, the Arab world thinks this would be fabulous, and apparently only a couple of dozen nations protest this as totally unfair to Israel. All that matters is Israel will not participate in her own lynching by the merry band of thugs Abbas seeks to bolster his side.

 

Israel has sought peace since her founding in 1948 with David ben Gurion. The recent revisionist history has the Israeli leadership voting not to be bound by the patrician map approved by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181 passed on November 29, 1947. This makes no sense as the Arab League had already rejected the patrician plan and all of Resolution 181 because they were on the verge of their great war of annihilation of the Jews and their newborn state. They only began screaming from the rooftop that Resolution 181 must be enacted just as the United Nations General Assembly had passed after they lost again in the Six Day War of 1967. This failure and loss of the lands they had illegally occupied since 1949 sent them raking through historical decisions seeking one to their liking. Unfortunately for the Arab League, the one they chose was the one which was negated and forever placed into the trash bin of history as soon as they had rejected it in the first place. The thing about United Nations General Assembly resolutions is that they are advisory and as such, both parties have to agree to abide by the suggestion, the crucial word is “suggestion or advisory.” When the Arab League voted to reject Resolution 181, it became null and void and thus could not be applied later. It was a one-time offer and it was refused that one time by the Arab League. For the record, the Zionist Congress had accepted the repartitioning of their land as the Jews simply wanted a state and peace with her neighbors. At that point, size did not matter. Now that it is obvious that the neighbors will eradicate Israel at their earliest possible convenience, now size matters. Even so, Israel has made numerous offers to reach a peaceful settlement which would end the violence and terrorism. It is painfully obvious that there can be no such settlement as the Arabs, as they stated in the Khartoum Resolution with what is known as the “Three No’s”; “No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, and No negotiations with Israel,” which can be translated into a single no, no Israel.

 

Any peace plan or offer which results in the continuation of Israel not under Arab rule and allowing the Jewish State to remain is a peace proposal which is dead on arrival as no Arab would ever accept such a proposal, and that is what is at the center of why President Trump has not been able to release his “Deal of the Century,” he cannot get any Arab nation to sign on and accept any deal leaving Israel intact. President Trump looked originally, we believe, at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a real estate problem and since he is, at least in his own mind, the world’s greatest real estate negotiator, he would walk in and find that magic combination and everybody would be popping champagne corks and celebrating. He has, hopefully, since seen the error of his hypothesis. This is not about land at all; it is about the supremacy of Islam over the Judaism they relegated as a dead faith superseded by the teachings of Mohammad. As the Jews also refused to accept Mohammad as the true messenger, they have also been deemed to have to represent the devil and as such are accursed. This makes the Jews inferior to the Muslims and as such must never be permitted to rule, especially over an area of land which once was under Islamic rule as once Islamic, must always be Islamic. Israel is thus not just a problem but an insult and provocation against the inviolability of Islam and thus must be completely and utterly subdued. That is the right way of the world according to Islam and as such must be accepted by all of the world, simply because Islam is supreme over all things. This is about religions and has nothing to do with land. The stressing of Jerusalem is over the capital of Israel, historic and anew, and must not be permitted to remain in Jewish hands. Jerusalem is not the first or even the original third holiest cities of Islam. Damascus was amongst the first as it was a capital of an enemy of Islam which they deemed to be the next one they would conquer. The city holding that title the longest was Constantinople, as it had some of the strongest walls in the world. Other cities given this title include Rome, Paris, London and whatever city is considered to be next in the crosshairs of Islam. Also, the third most holy city to Islam also depends upon whom you are asking as different groups of Muslims have different targets they seek to “conquer” as it depends on where they reside as to what is their biggest prize. It has changed throughout history and at one time, it was Vienna as the Islamic forces were stymied twice at their attempts to conquer this city. Things take on a different aspects and one’s view can become much clearer when the history and all the particulars are exposed, and Islam has to conquer the world and impose Islam as the predominant, actually only, faith and Allah the sole god for all of the earth otherwise the Quran claiming that the world would fall to Islam is in error. There is a way for the practitioners of Islam to alleviate the pressures of accomplishing the teachings of the Quran without world conquest, they simply need to choose the Meccan verses as predominant and the Medina verses as the lesser verses and void if they conflict with the Meccan verses. For an introduction to the differences and the reasons and purposes of these two separately written sets of verses, we have an introductory article with numerous links to other sources including some to a chronological version of the Quran as the actual Quran is not in chronological order, they arrange the verses from smallest to longest for easy memorization starting early in life. Meanwhile, we await this “Deal of the Century” and it will be just what the doctor ordered.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

*MENA = Middle East and North Africa also called the Arab world.

 

April 17, 2014

An Alternate Path to Palestinian Arab Israeli Peace

By now one would think that the world would have realized that the traditional method of forcing negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel were a dead-end making peace unattainable and another route would have been sought. Despite all the claims and blaming of Israel for the failure of these efforts, the truth indicates that it is largely due to Palestinian intransigence and refusals to compromise on even a single item that has doomed all previous efforts. The old tried and failed method of applying pressure on Israel to make ever more grand compromises and concessions only to have the Palestinians to wave all offers aside and claim that there are just a few more concessions they require from Israel before they can make peace will have the same result as have all past attempts of this method. The Palestinians rarely itemize and list their additional demands and they change them making for the appearance of change which is inevitably perceived to imply advancing towards a real and final agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because the Palestinians choose some different main point to base their rejection upon at each turn does not mean that they have had previous demands satisfied nor does it mean they have moved any closer to reaching a point of agreement. All it is a measurement of is Palestinian refusal to negotiate in good faith and instead to be implementing the standard Arab response to making peace with Israel formed at the Khartoum Conference and known as the “three no’s” which are; no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians have amended the third point to no successful negotiations with Israel which they view as in keeping with the spirit and underlying themes of the Khartoum Conference.

 

So, what might produce a way around this impasse? Since it should have become evident that there does not exist any combination of concessions or offers that the Israelis could ever propose that would be acceptable to the Palestinians, why not try to approach the whole peace process from the other side, request that the Palestinians provide terms that they would accept and would be willing to offer Israel and work from that end. Of course this approach would require something that had only been in evidence by its absence up to now, honesty and a rational means of judging and endorsing any offers, expectations and efforts concerning all parties involved. It is not helpful in reaching a peace agreement to always blame Israel for every impasse or collapse of the talks and if any blame is aimed at the Palestinians side, always equivocating and adding reasons that Israeli actions were most likely the real cause simply allows the Palestinian intransigence to become set in stone and unmovable. The honesty would be applied upon receiving the conditions and concessions proposed by the Palestinians of the Israelis, and then having the mediating nation’s representatives review and consider whether or not such terms would be even remotely acceptable if demanded of their country in similar negotiations. This could easily be accomplished by simply asking themselves one question and, the difficult part by all appearances, answer if they would even deem to consider, let alone actually accept, the proposed offer if an adversary were to offer them in a theoretical peace negotiation with their country.

 

Follows is a partial list of some of the poison pills which the Palestinians might include in their peace proposals, assuming they would even deign to offer anything and not simply demand that Israel be tasked with making the offers as it is far easier to just say no than it is to draw up an agreement at the risk that the other side might accept them and then be stuck with a resolution by their own hand. The most obvious is one they use repeatedly to end negotiations in the past is the “right of return” for over five-million Arab refugees and their descendants some of which three generations removed from the original refugee. One might recognize the term right of return as the exact phrase and system by which Israel by which Jews to return to their native lands of Israel in what is referred to as making Aliyah. This is one of many terms and historical facts about the Jewish heritage and claims to these lands which the Palestinians have woven their own version out of whole cloth and which much of the world accepts blindly knowing full well they are fabrications and a totally false narrative. Another demand which would be difficult to accept would be the redividing of Jerusalem and retuning all of the Old City including all of the Jewish Holy Sites to Palestinian control which would mean that the Temple Mount and the Western Wall would once again be denied visitation for Jews just as was the case when these areas were under Jordanian control. The Jordanians also guaranteed universal religious rights to visit the Holy Sites for Jews and Christians causing the long years of thirst and hunger for visitation rights where people of both faiths suffered with only a few sparse and individual moments where visitation by non-Muslims was ever permitted by Jordan. The Palestinian promises would be equally empty of any true intent to allow non-Muslims rights to visit their holy areas within the lands they control. The surrender of half of Jerusalem with the high probability of losing the capability for visitation to the Temple Mount and other Holy Sites having actually been offered by the Israelis under the deal proffered by Prime Minister Olmert should be a solid indication that Israel is willing to make very serious and even damaging concessions in order to attain a lasting and real peace.

 

The same was evidenced by the releasing of over seventy-five terrorist murderers and terror planning masters as demanded by the Palestinians during these past negotiations and the sole reason Israel withheld the final release was due to additional demands made by the Palestinians concurrent with threats to blow-up the talks as soon as the final group was released. Almost all of the terrorists released by Israel were serving life sentences or multiple life sentences for their horrific and horrendous acts of murderous terrorism against innocent civilians including women, children, seniors and even in some cases infants. Another demand recently added by the Palestinians about a year ago, which has not received general circulation or even notice, was the rights to hold military exercises with any nation or nations and the hosting of such exercises without any limit on the forces participating as well as unlimited rights to raise and arm a military force to any potential deemed necessary. This demand was expressed as a reaction to the Israeli request that any Palestinian state be demilitarized with their security from any outside attack provided by the Israelis upon any request from the Palestinians. The Palestinians claimed that the sole reason they would require a military and such protection would be from belligerence coming from Israel. Another item which Israel has demanded and been informed by the Palestinians and is completely out of the question is that any agreement be the final and complete end of any disagreements and be considered to end all demands from wither party on the other. The Palestinians demand that they be permitted further grievances and the continued right to continue their resistance to the occupation of the remainder of Palestine. They claim it is their right to continue terror attacks for as long as the state of Israel exists and that they will only end their resistance when all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea has been liberated and cleansed of its Jews. This is not a complete list of the grievances perceived and claimed by the Palestinians but should get the point across that the main argument and complaint the Palestinian demand must be addressed is the fact that Israel exists. Placing the onerous responsibility of producing a final and lasting peace agreement on the Palestinians would reveal their complete intransigence, belief in blood libels, and their litany of unappeasable demands which can only be satisfied with the complete eradication of the Jewish State and the casting of Israeli Jews to the corners of the world back into the Diaspora, just as was inflicted by the Romans almost two-thousand years ago and with the identical intent as today’s Palestinians, the annihilation of Judaism as a faith, peoples, and nation from the face of the earth. When this tack also fails and proves absolutely that the Palestinians do not desire peace but the destruction of Israel, then the world must be prepared to accept the One State Solution with the leadership of the Palestinians made to return to their exile as they returned under false pretenses and thus should not be permitted to remain to continue to sew unrest and hatreds.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

March 24, 2014

Even Abbas Snubs Obama Flat Refusing All Offers

United States President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu just over two weeks ago and they discussed everything from the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians under the mediation of Secretary of State Kerry as well as the steps which could be taken to assure that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons. Where their meeting may not have produced complete agreement, both leaders found their discussions to have been fruitful and promised to work together to further the peace talks and keep each other updated regarding the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program as well as other Middle East situations such as Syria and the Arab Spring. Just a week ago President Obama had the second meeting on the peace talks, this time with Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas. Leading up to their meeting, the White House had spoken of high expectations predicting that the Israeli Palestinian negotiations were likely to make great strides after the two leaders had met with President Obama. Somehow I get the feeling that either President Obama did not bother to talk with Secretary of State Kerry to be brought up to speed or they spoke and President Obama paid as close attention as he reputedly has shown his security briefings, at least, that is, the briefings he has bothered to attend.

 

So President Obama sat down with Mahmoud Abbas expecting a cordial exchange of ideas and reaching agreement on what the Palestinians needed to do in order for the President to coerce the Israelis to make even greater sacrifices and concessions in order to reward the Palestinians for agreeing to finally reach a comprehensive peace agreement. A friendly and receptive Abbas was not in the cards. I picture President Obama starting his conversation with Abbas expecting to be discussing subjects concerning the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with somebody who was on the same page and of similar mind as to what was necessary to reach an agreement. After all, it was Mahmoud Abbas who President Obama made his very first call to a foreign leader from the Oval Office after his first inauguration ceremony in January of 2009 and the President has treated and thought of Abbas as a like-minded and close friend. One can only imagine the shock to President Obama when Chairman Abbas simply refused to agree on anything which President Obama thought were necessary and obvious steps necessary in order to attain a lasting peace agreement. Where the order is known only to the two men and whatever aids were present, we can assume that President Obama breached the main three points which he believed both men recognized as necessary compromises the Palestinians would have to offer to attain peace with Israel expecting Abbas would readily agree and that would be that. But when President Obama breached the three main points, recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish People, abandon the Palestinian refugees right of return, and commit to the peace bringing a final end to the conflict, which he had expected Abbas and the Palestinians to agree with, Abbas instead gave a definitive “No!” to each and every point. It really is a shame that nobody filmed President Obama’s reactions as Abbas turned him down one point after the other. The progression of expressions on President Obama’s face might have proved to be amusing and possibly useful to the Republicans in some future ad campaign against Obamacare or any other subject where they and the Democrats have disagreements.

 

The real loser here should be Mahmoud Abbas as he has removed any misconception about which side of the Israel Palestinian negotiations is the one refusing to move the discussion forward. Even further proof was soon to arrive when Abbas returned to Judea and Samaria (West Bank) where he spoke to the press promising that he planned to pocket the gains made and continue in future negotiation to pocket additional gains each time picking up where the last negotiation left off. He added an aside stating that those who needed would understand what he meant. I am sorry to inform Mr. Abbas but his words and actions are not so cryptic that the average man on the street would find understanding his presumably hidden meanings at all difficult to discern. He plans on continuing to do as his predecessor and mentor, arch terrorist Yasser Arafat, taught him; simply negotiate and push for as many concessions as one can force while tentatively making agreeable noises and then walk away denouncing any hint that might have been perceived that you had compromised on any point and then insist the next negotiations begin with Israel granting every point they offered from the precious negotiations. This has been the modus operandi of the Palestinians and has been the negotiation technique used by much of the Muslim world when negotiating with non-Muslims.

 

Abbas went further and also took the opportunity to inform President Obama what the Palestinians demanded Israel to comply with in order to extend the negotiations beyond their end date towards the end of April. Abbas iterated demands that Israel release the remaining terror prisoners including Marwan Barghouti and other terror planning masters responsible for numerous Israeli deaths and causing permanent disabling injuries directly from their acts of sending others to die as suicide homicidalists, complete return to the 1949 Armistice Lines with very minor land swaps with all the remaining Israeli Jews living in neighborhoods that are to be surrendered to the Palestinians along with every Israeli in East Jerusalem and all of the Old City, as well as the complete acceptance of over five-million Palestinian refugees being given the opportunity to live within Israel and all, whether receiving a new home in Israel or remaining outside of Israel, receiving compensation for hardships and the loss of properties. So what Mahmoud Abbas dropped into President Obama’s lap was a universal refusal to take any step towards making peace with Israel guaranteeing that the current peace negotiations must fail due to Palestinian intransigence coupled with demands of Israel just to continue negotiating beyond the April deadline which if granted would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish state and make the starting point into negotiations to establish two Palestinian states, one named Palestine and the other named Israel with the Jews of Israel to be allowed to live as Dhimmis for as long as they would be permitted and eventually to be given the choice of conversion to Islam or the sword. Despite the reality that has been displayed in absolute terms that the reason the negotiations are destined to fail is unreasonable Palestinian expectation and demand, yet I would be willing to bet that when the negotiations end without any agreement being produce that Europe and President Obama with Secretary of State Kerry blaming Israel for not being willing to meet the Palestinians at some agreeable midpoint. I truly hope I am wrong about this but somehow I have my doubts that it will turn out any different than Abbas acclaimed as a man of peace and Netanyahu being castigated as the obstruction to attaining a lasting peace. Some perceptions refuse to bow even when smacked full-on by reality; and blaming Israel while holding the Palestinians as the poor, wretched, distraught victims of Apartheid policies as totally innocent and being the only truly desirous people for peace is among the most insanely resistant to reality of all such beliefs.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.