31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide

Pages: 1 2

There is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated process in the Arab–Israel conflict.  The process started in 1937 and has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel, promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews.  Israel wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace.  Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, this process never seems to make it to our mainstream media’s radar screen, nor into many of the classrooms of professors of Near Eastern Studies.

We see it in its most recent iteration in an April 3rd article in The New York Times describing the Palestinian Authority’s much ballyhooed intention of demanding that the UN officially welcome into the family of nations and into UN membership the State of Palestine. Interestingly, the article was titled “In Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out,” as though Israel had not already made numerous peace offers to the Palestinian Authority, and ought to do so quickly.  The text of the article did make reference to an offer that Netanyahu’s government was preparing, and to the preemptive rejection of this future offer by Palestinian Authority leaders, who had no hesitation pointing out that they feel they can do better at the UN.  But nowhere in the article was there any clarification that Arab leaders have a history, more than seven decades in length, of rejecting Israel’s repeated peace offers and squandering a grand total of thirty-one opportunities for the peaceful creation of a state for the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, alongside of Israel.

The first such opportunity arose in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended the partition of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River. The Jews would get about 15% of that territory, with the other 85% going to the Arabs, and to a small corridor from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem that would remain under British Mandatory control.  The Jews accepted the recommendation. The Arab leadership rejected the plan and escalated Arab violence against the British and Jews to a bona fide war: the “great Arab revolt.”  Had the Arab leadership accepted the Peel Partition plan, there would have been an Arab state in 85% of Mandatory Palestine in 1937. The British suppressed the revolt with great cruelty.

The next opportunity came with the UN Partition Plan of November 29, 1947, and the UN’s non-binding General Assembly Resolution #181. This resolution gave c. 55% of Mandatory Palestine to the State of Israel for the Palestinian Jews, and the other c. 45% would be the state for the Arabs west of the Jordan River. The Zionists accepted. Arab leaders rejected the plan, went to war in high-handed defiance of the UN, and lost.  Had they accepted, there would have been an Arab state in a bit less than half of Palestine in 1947.

But even in defeat, with their armies in disarray and with the nascent state of Israel in control of far more territory than had been intended by the UN Partition Plan, the Arab belligerents refused to make peace. Instead they agreed to what they triumphantly announced would be a mere temporary armistice.  With this agreement came the third opportunity for an Arab state alongside of Israel.  At the Rhodes Armistice Talks of 1949 the Israeli negotiators indicated that the newly conquered territory was negotiable, in exchange for recognition, negotiations without preconditions, and peace.  The Arab representatives refused, confident that they would soon wipe out the Jewish State. Had they agreed to negotiations, there could have been an Arab state in somewhat less than half of Mandatory Palestine in 1949.

Ironically, it was the 6-Day War (6/5-10/1967) that offered the fourth opportunity for the creation of an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israel’s representative at the UN, made his famous speech.

He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace.  The Arab representatives at the UN torched his olive branch.

Had the Arab states taken him up on his offer, there could have been peace and the possibility of the fulfillment of the UN General Assembly Resolution #181.  Instead, the leaders of eight Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, in September, 1967 to discuss what they called the “new reality.”  Their decision was no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.

The first Camp David Accords offered the fifth opportunity.  During 18 months of intense negotiations, ending on September of 1978, President Carter, Prime Minister Menahem Begin, and Egyptian President Anwar es-Sadat, thrashed out the text of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.  In the context of this agreement, Menahem Begin agreed to a 3-month freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. He also urged the PLO and Jordan to renounce the three Khartoum “NOs” and join Egypt in negotiations for a more comprehensive peace agreement.  Israel offered a framework for negotiating accords to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and to fully implement the UN’s binding Security Council Resolution #242. The accords recognized the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” with implementation of those rights and full autonomy within five years, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza after the democratic election of a self-governing authority to replace Israel’s military government.  Israel’s willingness to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace demonstrated definitively that its offers of territorial compromise for peace were not mere words.  Nonetheless, Arafat refused.

The Fahd Plan, 8/1981, the Fez Plan, 9/1982, the Reagan Plan 9/1982, and the Brezhnev plan[i], 9/1982, all emerged in a flurry of diplomatic activity from July of 1981 to September of 1982. All called for a Palestinian state to be formed on parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  While the Fez Plan had the most moderate language and was considered a victory of Arab moderates, none of the plans gained traction in the Arab world and Arafat rejected Fez, Reagan and Brezhnev outright.  Sources offer conflicting evidence regarding Arafat’s rejection of the Fahd plan[ii].

To be fair, it is important to note that Israel too rejected these plans.  One cannot second guess history; so it is useless to speculate regarding what Israel’s reactions might have been had Arafat been willing to entertain any one of these four plans, to abandon terrorism and to join Israel at the negotiating table.

It is interesting to note that Arafat’s unilateral declaration of statehood for the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza Strip , 11/15/1988, was greeted with much fanfare in the Arab world and the USSR.  However, it was a PR ploy far more than a political move.  While it enhanced Arafat’s stature, it did nothing to advance peace between Israel and the Arab world nor did it change any political realities on the West Bank and Gaza Stip.  Israel rejected the declaration because it was unilateral and unconditional, offered no cessation of hostilities, insisted on pre-conditions that were unacceptable to Israel, and made no offer of negotiations.

In October, 1991, at the behest of the USA and USSR, Israeli, Syrian and Palestinian representatives met in Madrid to discuss peace and the creation of an independent political entity for the Palestinian people.  The Palestinian delegates, although not members of the PLO, openly expressed their support for Arafat and were in constant contact with him in his exile in Tunis, sometimes flying there from Madrid to consult with him.  Thus despite Israel’s reluctance to deal with him, Arafat controlled and directed the Palestinian contingent at Madrid. According to some sources, it was Arafat’s “red lines” beyond which no negotiations could be entertained, and across which no Palestinian representative could tread, that scuttled the Madrid talks. It was also Hamas’ rejection of the talks, and its call for strikes and other protest activity on the day that the talks began, that helped thwart the Israeli and American goals of the peaceful creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most analysts agree, however, that the Madrid talks did at least lay the groundwork for the Oslo Accords of September13, 1993, which were seen at the time as the beginning of a new era of peace and the foundation for the State of Palestine that would emerge from the Israel-PLO negotiations that were set in motion at Madrid.

In 1993, with Pres. Clinton’s support, Israel undertook negotiations in Oslo with Arafat for the creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity. The result was the first iteration of the Oslo Accords. The PLO became the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Arafat was brought out of his Tunisian exile to be the “rais” (head, leader) of the PA, with its capitol in Ramallah. In exchange, Arafat agreed to eschew terror, end incitement, disarm and dismantle the terrorist groups under his control, create a democratic Palestinian government, educate the next generation for peace, and settle all differences by negotiation, per his personal letter signed and handed to Rabin on September 9. Arafat immediately violated every one of the Oslo Accords and began a terror war against Israel with the first suicide bombing on April 6, 1994. This offensive grew into a full-blown terror war with the “2nd Intifada”, which began on 9/29/2000 (see below).

In hindsight it is clear that Arafat had no interest in democracy or in peace.  He used his new position as “rais” of the PA as leverage for personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement, and he used the Palestinian territories under his control as a launching pad for a renewed terror war against Israel.[iii] In this latter endeavor he was aided greatly by his partnership with Hamas.

Israel’s reply to Arafat’s continued terror war, despite his commitments at Oslo was “Oslo 2,” a re-convening of both sides on September 24, 1995 in Taba, Egypt, with Arafat again agreeing to halt terror attacks, end incitement, and handle all disagreements via peaceful negotiations. But he did not, and car bombs, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, kidnappings, sniper shootings, and stabbings continued to be his modus operandi for Palestinian independence.

Three years later, on October 23, 1998, at the Wye River Plantation, Israel and the USA worked again with Arafat to re-engage him on a diplomatic level and pressure him to uphold the commitments he made at Oslo.  Per the Wye  River Memorandum documenting that meeting Arafat agreed again to crack down on terrorism.  In exchange for that renewal of his original promise, Israel agreed to withdraw from more of the West Bank.  Arafat continued his terrorism partnership with Hamas, pretending that he could not control Hamas and was thus not responsible for continued terrorism.  But for two more years, Arafat continued to sponsor terrorism against Israel, fund more than a dozen terror organizations, work hand in hand with Hamas, teach Palestinian children that Palestine included all of Israel, and pay the salaries of imams who preached the coming of the one last great and mighty jihad that would drive the Jews into the sea.

Ehud Baraq won the 1999 Prime Ministerial election on a “peace now” platform, and promptly signed the Sharm ash-Sheikh agreement on September 4, 1999, in which Arafat agreed for the fifth time to honor the Oslo Accords and implement the Wye River accords.  They both agreed to a deadline of September 13, 2000 for a final treaty.

Then came the biggest and best ever opportunity for a state for the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the UN General Assembly  Resolution #181 in 1947 – Camp David 2. From July 11 – 24, 2000 President Clinton presided over the second Camp David  accords. Prime Minister Baraq made what Saudi Crown Prince Bandar bin Sultan called the best offer that Arafat could possibly expect[iv].  This was an historic offer, with Arafat receiving 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and 3% of Israeli land, and a Palestinian Authority capitol in East Jerusalem.  All that was required of Arafat was an end to the conflict. He could not do it.

At Camp David, Dennis Ross has said, there was no comprehensive final settlement offered. The Israeli and American negotiators put forth ideas regarding borders, Jerusalem, and land transfers. One of those was a Palestinian state comprised of four cantons. Arafat rejected these suggestions, but did not raise a single idea himself. Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of Israel’s negotiators who took copious notes at the closed meeting and kept meticulous diaries of the proceedings, said that Clinton exploded at the Palestinians over their refusal to make a counteroffer. “‘A summit’s purpose,’ Clinton said, ‘is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.’ Then he got up and left the room.”

According to Ben-Ami, Israel tried to find a solution for Jerusalem that would be “a division in practice…that didn’t look like a division:” that is, Israel was willing to compromise on the issue, but needed a face-saving formula. The Palestinians, however, had no interest in helping the Israelis.  To the contrary, they wanted to humiliate them. Nevertheless, Ben-Ami said Israel dropped its refusal to divide Jerusalem and accepted “full Palestinian sovereignty” on the Temple Mount and asked the Palestinians only to recognize the site was also sacred to Jews.

According to Denis Ross’ account[v], in his comprehensive and definitive exposition of the Camp David 2 proceedings,  Arafat’s only contribution was the assertion that, in reality, no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, and the real Temple existed in Nablus. Not only did he not make any accommodation to Israel, Ross said, “he denied the core of the Jewish faith.” This stunning remark indicated to the Americans that Arafat was incapable of the psychological leap necessary — the one Anwar Sadat had made — to achieve peace. As a result, President Clinton’s press conference following the summit laid most of the blame for the outcome on Arafat. Clinton made it clear that the failure of Camp David 2 was Arafat’s fault, as did Ross.

There are some dissenting views about Arafat’s posturing[vi];  but even if these dissenting views were correct, the dynamics of the Camp David 2 negotiations remain unchallenged: Baraq offered, Arafat refused, and made no counter offer. And then he went to war.

The clearest demonstration of Arafat’s real intentions came with the outbreak of the 2nd Intifada on September 29, 2000.  In English Arafat spoke of the Oslo Accords as “the peace of the brave,” but in Arabic he told his people that the Accords were merely a ploy to give the PLO time to build its strength so that it could more effectively attack Israel in the future. And, indeed, just six months after the failed Camp David 2 negotiations, Arafat was deploying suicide bombers and shrieking on Arab television about the great “Day of Rage” and the renewed terror war that would soon bring Israel to its knees. The ferocity and frequency of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks launched during the 2nd intifada caught the IDF off guard; but after about 6 months, the Israeli military and other security forces were able to intercept and prevent most terror attacks.  The fence around the Gaza Strip (built in 1996) and later the security barrier around much of the West Bank (started in 2002) were more than 90% effective in stopping attacks.

Pages: 1 2

  • WildJew

    I suppose it is necessary to repeat this narrative for those who are ignorant of the modern history of Islam's war against the Jews. For me, the Jewish people's right to the entirety of this land transcends Palestinian Arab and Muslim-Arab intransigence. Those who believe Israel must surrender land to the jihadists in exchange for assurances of peace, will never be convinced. Nothing will dissuade them.

    • scum

      Notice his title: WildJew pretty much says it all. Genocide against the Palestinians is his answer.

      • aspacia

        No, Wild Jew simply wants a homeland for his people, the Muslims have a wide swath of turf to call home, but are greedy and hate nonMuslims which probably includes you scum.

      • MixMChess

        What genocide? Palestinian population has increased exponentially under Israeli influence – over 84% from 1993-2004 ALONE!

        Want to talk about real genocide? Look no further than the talking points and actions from the Palestinians. The Hamas charter calls for the GENOCIDE of worldwide Jewry and the destruction of Israel. The P.A. regularly encourages antisemitism and the murder of Jews.

        Why aren't you condemning the Palestinians, Arabs and Islamists for their very real institutional genocide against Jews?

      • Snorbak

        It is an exercise in futility attempting to argue against those that are willfully ignorant of history. If, like many you believe that Israel committs genocide against the arabs, you are suffering a total inndifference to reality.
        Your claim that "WildJew" advocates genocide against the arab population of Israel based solely on his title, is a bit rich.

      • a.feins

        notice your title.I don't think you could have picked a better one.The wild Jew made no mention of genocide but many pro palestinian groups have against Israel and Jewish people.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      The Palestinians do not want peace they want war and the destruction of
      Israel, what is to negotiate, nothing. The Jews of Israel keep the Palestinians
      from the poverty and misery that is widespread throughout the Middle East.
      Any problems the Palestinians have are self made, how can Isreal deal with
      a people that strap suicide bombs on their children, how, it can not be done.
      What keeps the Palestinians alive in spite of their insane suicidal pursuits is
      the forebearance of Israel for which the Israeli Jews should be given the
      highest praises anyone has ever received in the history of the World………..

  • stern

    This author perpetuates a common mistake that must be pointed out. He keeps referring to what is now Israel and the West Bank as "Mandatory Palestine". It is not. The original Palestinian Mandate included what is now Jordan – a full 80% of the real Mandatory Palestine.

    This does make a difference, because one of the chief complaints of the pro-Palestinian lobby is that Israel wants 78% of "the land", leaving only 22% for the poor Arabs. In truth, the Arabs ALREADY HAVE 80% of the land, and the Jews are still being asked to give up even more of their paltry 20%.

    • MixMChess

      Right on Stern, although I think the Arabs in fact illegally possess over 85% of the original Mandate, but we're still both in the right ballpark.

  • steven l

    It is all about deception. Fundamental tool of Islam.
    Israel should adopt as her starting position the Balfour declaration and the decision of the Ligue of Nation for discussing the final shape and size of the Jewish state (1917, 1922).

    • PhillipGaley

      Yes, and was it not based upon an agreement, looking forwards, for England's help toward re-establishing the homeland, Jewish scientists would help England win the war?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      I would prefer the agreement between The Almighty and Moses………….William

    • Truthtriumphs

      Israel's legallity is based on the San Remo Declaration of April 25th. 1920,and is enshrined in international law….it is the same basis for the legallity of Syria, Iraq and lebanon.
      In fact, as someone correctly pointed out, Jewish sovereignty was to be in the entirety of palestine, based on biblical borders in the ancient Jewish homeland in the 1st. and 2nd, Temple periods.
      There is an excellent treatise on the subject by one Howard Grief….an interntional lawyer who isthe foremost expert on the subject.

  • scum

    Israel as the victim? Hardly.

    • stern

      I seem to spend a lot of time scraping scum off my shoes.

    • aspacia

      Muslims attacked Zionists long before 1948–Israel is the victim you antiJewish scum

    • MixMChess

      You make an intelligent comment? Hardly!

  • BobSmith101

    Would you wear a T-shirt with a Mohammad cartoon printed on it?

    You might in Montana. Don’t try it in Mecca.


    Because, Islam trains a small number of its most devout believers it’s OK to kill. And Islamic killers have been trained to kill anyone who insults Allah and/or Mohammad.

    In Montana you’d have a good chance none of these Islamic killers would see you.

    In Mecca you wouldn’t last five minutes. One of Islam’s killers would come from out of nowhere and kill you. It is that simple.

    You don’t believe me? Ask any Muslim!

    Read it all at: http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

    • Factoid

      I'd pretty nervous about it even in Montana.

  • Battle_of_Tours

    PART 1:
    Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.

    Well, the so-called Arab 'Palestinians' are honest about one thing, and one thing only: They don't want peace.

    Suffering seems to be the lot of these Arab Pals, so rather than build a productive society run by constitutional democratic principles, as have other societies, protecting the rights of the people, and working hard to make things work; they opt for warmongering dictatorship leaderships that keep the people perpetually oppressed with poverty, violence, self-imposed 'victimhood', collective hatred, rage against the Jews, suicidal imperatives, ignorance, and female oppressions; all this in true devotion to the dictates of a 7th century desert Arab warlord, Mohammad=Allah, and his theo-political 'teachings' scribbled into the Koran, which mostly sums up Islam.

    Stand back and look at this: Arab 'Palestinians' repeatedly reject peace, democratic principles, constitutional law, human rights protections (all as 'man made laws'), so are unable to form a functional and peaceful productive society; but they accept Islamic principles (which in ideal form are Koranic Sharia), so suffering according to some primitive desert Arab's imperative to go and conquer in his name, to the impoverishment and social dislocations devoid of social justice, in order to destroy the Jews and their functioning, successful democratic society… What's wrong with this picture? Worse, what's wrong with the world to not call it, and put a stop to this unnecessary Arab self-imposed human suffering? It simply makes no sense.

    But suffering is what Islam breeds. It is so evident in all the Islamic states, from Mali to Indonesia, that the people suffer. Even in so-called (almost) 'progressive' Islamic states like Malaysia, Turkey, Lebanon, AUE Dubai, (former) Tunisia, there are gross violations of human rights and Islamic attacks on principles of human equality and freedom of conscience, where due process of law is a whimsical thing, so suffering is embedded as well. It is much worse in the rest of the Islamic universe, where suffering is deeply embedded for the people: Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Yemen, Caucasus, the whole of North Africa, especially Sudan and Somalia, and then draconian Sharia in primitive, oil rich Saudi Arabia, where stonings and beheadings are a public pass-time. Never mind the Middle Eastern states like Jordan, Syria, where petty kingships/dictatorships rule with a draconian iron hand. That's what Islam produces, very few success stories, but much human suffering. And that is the world to which the Arab 'Palestinians' belong to. So they are meant to suffer. None can blame that on the Jews! Throwing the Jews out of Palestine (since no land grabbed by Arab conquerers can ever return to the 'infidels' per their Koran) will not change things for them one iota. All the 'peace' flotillas, humanitarian aid, humanistic (Christian based) sympathy, and mainstream hand wringing can never change the perpetual Islamic suffering reality. They do it all to themselves.

  • Battle_of_Tours

    PART 2:
    So what we get is this: "Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell." There is no way to change that reality, not unless they jettison Islam, as Turkey's Ataturk (almost) succeeded in doing. Otherwise, all you get for all your troubles trying to bring peace to the Middle East, or the rest of the Islamic world, is hatred, vengeance, poverty, famines, destruction, torture and death. So the people suffer. None can blame the Jews, nor the West for this. This suffering, exacerbated by their very high birth rates breeding more poverty, is what they have reaped from their Mohammad=Allah societal foundations. Throw in 'inshallah' fatalism, systemic corruption, slavish subservience, kat addiction, child 'suicide' bombings, 'honor' killings of women, and whipped up hatreds of all the 'others', and you have the perfect recipe for Allah-hell. The Arab-Israeli conflict pales as a small side show by comparison to the deeply embedded problems of the Islamic/Arab world. There is no 'road map to peace' that can ever save that. It's the Islam. Deep down, it's always Islam: war and more war, more poverty, more suffering, more cries for help and 'victimhood' while they lob missiles and suicide bombers at the non-Islamic 'other', especially Israel. You can't help those who will not help themselves, while they have their hand out. Suffering is what Islam is all about. Gaza and West Bank notwithstanding, they do it all to themselves… That is the sick reality of Islam, and even them recognizing Israel won't change it. This is beyond rescuing. Islam is dead.

    • Daren

      islam is not dead! islam is DEATH!!!! allah al llahi -the moon god,the sword god,the war god and mohammed the great mass murder its' prophet !

  • Mark

    Israel needs to up the ante on the propaganda front. Israel should forcefeed the truth to their Arab neighbors and Palestinians with Arabic-speaking TV and radio channels. The truth about islam's history, the israel-arab recent 100 year history,etc. will hopefully abandon the Arab's self-righteous, hypocritical, whining claim to Arab victimhood. Hopefully, Arabs would mature and become more reasonable negotiators.

    • johnnywoods

      Don`t bet on that Mark.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        Reasonable negotiators, never. They are to busy, it started with the Islamists
        throwing their brains out a window, then shoes, rocks, bombs, bombs tied
        to children etc., so why are we surprised when they throw peace out of the
        window tied to their future…………………………………………..William

  • American Taxpayer

    You lyying ssaacks of ssshhit!

  • American Taxpayer

    May your nuclear weapons site blow up under your chosen asses, you lyying ssaacks of ssshhit!
    American Taxpayer… the ones who pay for the Palestinian holocaust because we are so ignorant since you control every aspect of our learning.

    • MixMChess

      Really? Considering we have given billions to the Palestinians (over $3 billion contributed to UNRWA ALONE up through 2003) give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Arab States in foreign aid (estimated at least $300 million), nearly $2 billion annually to Egypt, an estimated $800 billion on Iraq (possibly to skyrocket to $3 trillion), over $500 billion on Afghanistan, tens of billions to other belligerent Arab/Islamic states (such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia) and countless other trillions to promote democracy in the region – I think it is far more accurate to state that the American Taxpayer has been paying for another Holocaust of Israelis, with us Americans not too far behind in the line to the gas chambers. So who is the real LIAR?

    • Snorbak

      In reading your post all I see is "May your….blah blah blah….learning"
      You will get more respect if you argue your point without the emotion attached!
      But then, I would'nt expect anything more from a typical liberal that feels & does'nt think.

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    From the GUARDIANS OF DEMOCRACY, of multi Octaves, WE INVOKE!
    May the Light of Cosmic Illumination, pour in from Cosmic sources, like a Million Niagra Falls, enfold our Planet, eradicate Islam.
    The violation of Archangel Gabriel's name by the Pervert Mohammed, in Paedophilia and Rapine, demands the purging of this Satanic Ideology from existence.

  • kafir4life

    Are these so-called "palistanians" also worshippers of the made up moon god, allahaha? The allahaha that was invented by the peodophile mohamat (mad mo) around the time he was "porking" his favorite pig (some say it was actually his father)? After carnally knowing his "papa", he slaughtered and ate him raw? The intestinal distress that followed caused him to "reveal" the most holy terror guide, the koran, as he shat it's contents on the desert floor?
    Those them?

    allahu snackbar!

    • kafirman

      My friend, vis-a-vis Islam, you know the right answer, but are wrong on facts, methodology of argumentation and presentation. You actually hurt the cause.

  • nunyainct

    31 Times Palestinian Muslims reject offers for land and peace agreements. No Mystery over here. Islam commands slaughter in their blueprints are in the Qu'ran which commands subjugation or slaughter of Christians, Jews and all other non Muslims. This conflict has never had anything to do with land, but Islamic hegemony since Muhammad, their Satan, spread Islam forcibly by the sword, submit, convert or die. Shame such fundamental principles are not grasped by world leaders. Islam IS the modern day pestilence to civilized society, and anyone who thinks otherwise has never read the Qu'ran, the ahadith, or history of 270 million people slaughtered in the name of Islam.

  • ProudAmerican

    Isn't it a shame that all those practicing Islam who are living freely abroad in the USA, Europe etc can't extend the same acceptance and freedom they enjoy to those living in Israel. They come to my country, enjoy its lifestyle and freedoms and denegrenate it's beliefs and its citizens because why? Maybe they should return to the lands of Islam and work to clean up their own mess there instead blaming the rest of the world for their problems. Israel has worked to become what it is today just like my country has. We don't sit around with our hand out while blaming the rest of the world for our lot in life. We don't rely on terrorists, car bombings etc; we rely on government, voting, doing the right thing, and hard work.