Israel to Palestinians: Sorry, We’ll Keep Building

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel. 


settlementsThis week the Israeli cabinet approved a new national-priorities map by 15 votes and four abstentions.

Each year the map extends special benefits to a list of communities. This year, out of 600 that were chosen, 90 are in the West Bank, and 9 of those are small settlements outside the large settlement blocs.

The inclusion of those small settlements “outside the blocs” drew protests from the usual suspects. The four ministers who abstained—including Tzipi Livni, chief negotiator in the peace talks with the Palestinians—are all dovish advocates of a Palestinian state.

Livni, for her part, said it was “wrong and contrary to national interests to take funds…to encourage settlement in these secluded and dangerous settlements.”

Zehava Gal-On, leader of the far-left opposition Meretz faction, had still stronger words: “The decision to include extremist outposts whose legality is not certain in the national priority map is a targeted assassination of peace efforts and a trampling of the rule of law.”

And Dov Weisglass, who was a negotiator for former prime minister Ariel Sharon, asked in an enraged op-ed: “How does the decision to bolster communities located in the heart of the territory advance an agreement which Israel claims it is seeking?”

To begin with, on a simple factual level these critics are right. A few days before the cabinet vote, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas reiterated in Cairo his longstanding position that “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands.”

If one accepts, then, that the Palestinian state would have to be Jew-free—while Israel would continue to include a large Arab population—then strengthening Jewish communities in the putative Jewless areas appears to harm the “solution.”

Why, then, did 15 out of 19 ministers vote in favor of the new map?

The basic reason is that it’s a right-leaning cabinet, reflecting the will of the Israeli people who over the past three and a half decades have mostly elected right-leaning governments.

Indeed, a poll released this week suggests the cabinet is quite in synch with Israeli public opinion. It found that 79 percent of Israeli Jews see the recently restarted Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as having a low chance of success, 63 percent oppose withdrawing to the 1949 armistice lines with land swaps, and 58 percent oppose dismantling small settlements outside the blocs.

And what accounts for that rightward drift in the Israeli Jewish public?

No doubt, statements like Abbas’s—“we would not see the presence of a single Israeli—civilian or soldier—on our lands”—have something to do with it.

What kind of neighbor would that be? Should Israel comply with the Jew-free principle and go through the severe national trauma of a forced evacuation of tens of thousands of Israelis?

And there are some other factors. Over a thousand Israelis murdered in the 2000-2005 Second Intifada. Thousands of rockets on Israeli communities after Israel indeed—albeit on a smaller scale—removed every Israeli civilian and soldier from Gaza. The ongoing inculcation of murderous hostility toward Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank. Ongoing vicious stone-throwing attacks against Israelis who live in the—supposedly acceptable—settlement blocs. One can go on and on.

Another way of saying this is that—yes, even for Palestinians—time does not stand still. After rejecting hands-down every offer of a state from the Peel Commission in 1937 to Ehud Olmert in 2008, after holding fast to conditions that not even ultra-dovish Israeli leaders can meet, after continuing the violence and hate, you might see those settlements keep growing.

Palestinians—unlike the general rule in life—keep getting another and another and another chance. But even that might have its limit.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Larry Larkin

    How about “Arab free, from river to sea”. That sounds like a good option to me.

    • Manaphy

      I just love it how Jews want the U.S. to have an open-borders immigration policy and to give amnesty to 25 million illegal aliens, but demand that they have a mono-religious Ethno-state in Palestine.

      • Drakken

        PSSST hey dummy, there is no Palestine and there are no Palestinians. They are Jordanians in the west bank and Egyptians in Gaza.

        • Manaphy

          I didn’t say anything about Palestinians. You were the one who brought them up. BTW, Palestine is the name of the geographical region between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. The state of Israel and the Palestinian territories (or “Judea and Samaria”, because I suspect that is how you call them) are situated in said geographical region. The presence of Palestinians, or lack thereof, doesn’t justify Jewish hypocrisy over pushing America to adopt open-borders and amnesty, while simultaneously preserving a Jewish ethno-state with an immigration policy which only welcomes Jews. It is not that I have a problem with Israel being a Jewish state, in fact I support Jewish Nationalism just as every people deserve to have countries of their own. It is just that one thing about Jews that sickens me is that they want to destroy the cultures and heritages of Europeans and Americans, while building a Jewish supremacist state in Israel, and calling anyone who points out this hypocrisy an “anti-Semite”.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I didn’t say anything about Palestinians.”

            Yes you did. The only “mono-religious Ethno-(quasi)-state in Palestine” is in Gaza, unless you count Jordan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It is not that I have a problem with Israel being a Jewish state, in fact I support Jewish Nationalism just as every people deserve to have countries of their own. It is just that one thing about Jews that sickens me is that they want to destroy the cultures and heritages of Europeans and Americans, while building a Jewish supremacist state in Israel, and calling anyone who points out this hypocrisy an “anti-Semite”.”

            I see. You think that Jews are entirely monolithic. Just because.

            Well, I’m not sure I can help you with your delusions if you can’t the see self-evident fallacies in your own statements.

          • Moa

            Israel accepts non-Jews as citizens – but this is not an automatic right. From your statements it looks like you mistake the fact that Israel states that all Jews have an automatic right to become citizens and live in Israel as “only Jews may become citizens” [which is not true; there are five ways for non-Jews to become citizens].

            There is an essential difference I think you have failed to grasp here.

            Once you do grasp the difference you’ll see that your statements about Israel are untrue. At least you recognize the Right of Israel to exist – some can’t even do this.

            Citizens of eleven countries are prohibited from obtaining automatic citizenship through marriage, eg. Iran and the usual evil suspects. They can still get citizenship through the normal application process. Reference:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law

            I think the more you learn about Israel the more you’ll be pleasantly surprised that not only is is a “normal” cosmopolitan country, it is possibly one of the most progressively enlightened, despite its harsh circumstances.

            Your objections to Israel come from your misunderstandings. If you let us, we’ll help correct those for you – so you come to a more accurate picture of what Israel really is (which is not what its opponents say it is). Israel has flaws, like any country, but they are not the ones your are pointing out.

          • Drakken

            Pssst! Hey dummy, the Israeli Jews are not, repeat, are not pushing the US for open borders, there ya go Sparky, all better now.

        • pabis

          Yup…you are CORRECT!

        • Khalil

          funny.. im Palestinian and im from Palestine

          • Drakken

            Your not a Pali, no matter how much you wish it so, your either Jordanian or Egyptian an a arab to boot. Pssst, by the way, your never ever going to get your own state.

        • Khalil

          im Palestinian from Palestine.

      • TheOrdinaryMan

        Everyone of Jewish origin whom I’ve spoken with, favors the so-called two-state solution; and almost everyone of them also favors the open-borders U.S. immigration policy. So you’re only half correct.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          They’re called leftists for a reason. Generally people who want open borders here want open borders everywhere.

          We also call them “communists.”

        • aquataine

          Everyone you have spoken to–hardly a scientific poll. Read some Jewish media sources and polls.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        And another thing dummy, those “Jews” who are opposed to borders also oppose Israeli sovereignty.

        “..demand that they have a mono-religious Ethno-state in Palestine.”

        You must be referring to Gaza..

      • Moa

        “but demand that they have a mono-religious Ethno-state in Palestine.”

        Umm, all religions are practiced in Israel. For example, many of the *over one million* Arabs in Israel practice Islam as well as Christianity.

        As far as ethnicity goes, Israel has Russians, Europeans, “Palestinians” (the name used before 1948 to exclusively mean Jews, especially those who have descended from the continuous Jewish presence in the area for over 3000 years), Sudanese (when the Egyptians would not take the Sudanese africans fleeing Islamic Sudanese persection), Vietnamese, North Americans, Armenians, etc etc.

        Your statement is so ignorant it is very very funny. I suggest you do some homework about the history of the State of Israel and the current demographics abd religiographics. It is very very diverse with all sorts of different minorities (with a *huge* number of Arab Muslims).

        Please note that the essentially single-ethnicity single-religion states in the region are Arab (and becoming increasingly so as the tiny minorities of Christian dhimmis are progressively exterminated from Iraq, the West Bank of Jordan, Syria, Gaza etc).

        Please re-do your homework. You’ve got an F- so far since you haven’t even done basic fact-checking before posting.

      • pabis

        This Jew doesn’t…..as do all my Jewish friends!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Here’s something that will shock your mind:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Here’s another one to blow your mind. Note that the “source” is not wikipedia, but the 53 sources cited at the bottom:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_the_Gaza_Strip

        You are so welcome.

    • erma652

      as Carmen said I am taken by
      surprise that a single mom can profit $4748 in a few weeks on the
      internet. have you read this site w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • Hank Rearden

    Facts on the ground. The Palis are not trying to build their own state, they are trying to destroy Israel. Can’t negotiate that.

    Josey Wales: “Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”

    • Moa

      The Arab Palistinians already have their own State. As part of the Muslim Ummah they see all Muslims lands as one (from an Islamic point of view).

      You are entirely right that the only reason they claim the land is so they can destroy Israel.

      They want to destroy because the Qur’an and hadiths like Sahih Muslim 6985 command them to.

      They don’t actually care about the land and invented the disinformation about a “Palestinian” people (with great help from the Soviets) so they could claim Israeli territory and fool idiots who never cross-check claims with facts. Here’s a great presentation showing PLO founders (including Yasser Arafat) stating exactly why this fiction was concocted to satisy the Islamic requirement for Jewish genocide:

      http://www.al-rassooli.com/palestine/index.html (pages 6 to 13 give most info if you are in a hurry).

  • muchiboy

    The option is not a Zionist state or a Jew-less state,surely.There are other,less polarized solutions that may serve the interests of both peoples.Imagination,magnanimity and trust may be enough to overcome perceived and real barriers to a just and lasting peace.

    • Danny

      Your level of naivety is disturbing. Can you point to any action taken by the Palestinians since 1936 that would suggest they should be trusted? On the other hand, what concessions has Israel given to the Arabs to suggest that they want peace? You have to be willfully blind to history to believe what you wrote.

      • muchiboy

        Perhaps.I have never run away from my naivety.Sometimes,I even embrace it.Occasionally it leads to pleasant surprises,and reaffirms my belief in the goodness of Human Nature.Still,that Big stick you Americans are fond of carrying around is useful in such circumstances,and it is wise to be cautious,especially with neighbors such as Israel,Syria,etc.
        I am not totally inexperienced in this world,having fought in a war,more or less lost a country,and have worked in a prison for some thirty years.
        Jews and Arabs,both Christian and Muslims,have lived as Palestinians,more or less peacefully,for centuries,much of this within the Ottoman Empire.Still….
        The time span you mention is problematic,given the ethnic cleansing going on in Europe at the time,and the need for a Sanctuary for Jews fleeing the Holocaust.Arabs,along with other colonized peoples were looking for independence,and the exodus of Jews from Europe to Palestine,with Zionist intentions, was reason enough for mistrust.
        I am unclear of your reference to Israeli concessions.

        • gray_man

          “I have never run away from my naivety.Sometimes,I even embrace it.”

          You hit the nail on the head.
          Interestingly you seem to think it is a positive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Interestingly you seem to think it is a positive.”

            That’s what indoctrination does to people.

        • Graham Ford

          Dear Muchiboy,
          If you studied the history of the Ottoman Empire, and indeed the Levant during that time, you would know that there was nothing peaceful about the way the Muslim Turks butchered their non-Muslim subjects. Nothing has changed today. The Bible is right when it prophetically speaks of people saying ‘Peace! Peace! when there is no peace.’

          • EarlyBird

            Through the end of the Ottoman Empire to around the early 1970s there was a huge effort to become organized around modernity and nationalism and to a great degree they succeeded. During that time, however, they could never wrest popular control of their governments from Western powers. At some point many looked up and said, “This doesn’t work. Let’s go old school again.”

          • ziggy zoggy

            Right. The islamopithecines have destroyed the secular advances Attaturk made because of fictional American crimes. How does it feel to bow to Mecca and the Arabs five times a day, You Iranian slave?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            America and NATO helped Turkey quite a bit. I’m not even sure what kind of false grievances would have played there. I think it was simply hardcore sharia factions against infidels.

            Turkey had very little if anything to complain about against the West unless you’re talking about jihadis that miss the empire. That’s hard to use for manufacturing grievances.

          • EarlyBird

            “Right. The islamopithecines have destroyed the secular advances Attaturk made because of fictional American crimes.”

            Oh hardly, you ignorant ape. Islamists would hardly let Turkish women run around in bikinis while drinking beer on the beach. Try traveling outside of Butcher’s Holler now and then, okay? You’re an idiot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Through the end of the Ottoman Empire to around the early 1970s there was a huge effort to become organized around modernity and nationalism and to a great degree they succeeded.”

            You mean Turkey? We’re talking about former colonies…so it’s unclear what you’re talking about.

            “During that time, however, they could never wrest popular control of their governments from Western powers.”

            Popular control from Western powers? Cultural hegemony of the West? What are you talking about?

          • EarlyBird

            “Popular control from Western powers? Cultural hegemony of the West? What are you talking about?”
            I’m talking about Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and others who first flirted with Pan-Arabism, briefly the Nazis (not necessarily “Nazism” the ideology), then socialism and Pan-Arabism. Anything to get out from under the yoke of Western puppeteers.
            (Iran wanted to be free of English control after WWII, but the Brits didn’t want to give up control of its Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the forerunner to BP, and so told Ike that Mossadegh was in bed with the Soviets, even though M was an outspoken opponent to Soviet meddling and wanted closer relations with the US. The CIA took him out and the rest is history.)
            Pan-Arabism was Nasser’s big push, but the idea of considering all Arab nations one big confederation, aka, Pan-Arabism, really took hold after the Great War. Even Arafat’s PLO was by no means a religiously motivated in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s.
            My point is that the Arabs do have a history with modern political-nationalist ideas, and either they were undercut by Western powers, or they just failed because they were stupid (Nasser), but that radical Islamist ideologies today are fairly recent movements.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m talking about Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and others who first flirted with Pan-Arabism, briefly the Nazis (not necessarily “Nazism” the ideology), then socialism-Pan-Arabism. Anything to get out from under the yoke of Western puppeteers.”

            Perhaps so, but they had much worse intentions than any of the Western powers. If you want to judge the actors on good faith, the problem was primarily when the Arab and Islamic leaders rather than with the West.

            Think about it: Western nations have leaders that must gain popular support or lose their power. Arab Islamic regimes have leaders that can maintain power until they die. And they are not accountable to the people under their authority. There is a lot more motive for Western leaders to act in good faith in contrast with non-Western regimes.

            And in terms of cultural hegemony, that hasn’t even really happened at all, except in a few places only because of mass media. That’s not even hegemony. That’s cultural influence. And why should we apologize for that? People want to listen to music, travel, feel free to criticize their leaders…

            Honestly you ought to think about the empathy you have, and the origins of these “grievances” with a better global understanding of how these people are manipulated and deluded by their leaders and circumstances.

            The USA is a place that is a privilege to live, but you can’t think that you deserve freedom more than others who don’t have it. But you also must understand that freedom gives you the opportunity to understand circumstances in some cases better than those stuck in them. They can only see the trees, but you have an opportunity to view the entire forest when they often don’t.

            That gives you an opportunity to help them understand their own situation. What you do is take reports about their impressions of the forest that they get when they’re stuck staring at trees.

            Realize where you are and start thinking more critically about the various views you adopt, and if you don’t understand people who disagree with you, take more time to make sure you understand before you attack.

            And I also think that you must understand the fundamentals of leftist ideology before you realize how important it is to remain skeptical of their views until you fully understand them.

          • EarlyBird

            “Perhaps so, but they had much worse intentions than any of the Western powers.”

            If by “intentions” you mean they didn’t have a particular interest in Jeffersonian democracy, I agree. I believe they would have created something uniquely Arabic and far more representative and organic for that society. Something we wouldn’t like to live under, but which is comfortable for them and which would not put an entire society at odds with America. Imagine that.

            “…Arab Islamic regimes have leaders that can maintain power until they die. And they are not accountable to the people under their authority.”

            Who do you think we’ve put in place?! Are you actually as ignorant about your own country’s history? It is the very dictators-for-life that the US has put in place and propped up for decades, e.g., the House of Saud, the Mubarak regime, formerly Saddam, the Shah, etc. who smothered any natural political evolution.

            “…And in terms of cultural hegemony…”

            You are the one who brought up cultural hegemony, not me. Read your own post.

            “Honestly you ought to think about the empathy you have…”

            You ought to try engage facts seriously and honestly, even when they rub up against your Universal Theory of Leftist are the Root of All Evil. You’re an ideologue who has figured everything out, but how to stuff everything into his tidy ideology. Wow, you are a stuffed shirt.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I believe they would have created something uniquely Arabic and far more representative and organic for that society. Something we wouldn’t like to live under, but which is comfortable for them and which would not put an entire society at odds with America. Imagine that. ”

            Only in your imagination. Let me guess; if not for Israel…or did we steal too much of the oil we found for them and then bought from them? What stopped them?

            “Who do you think we’ve put in place?! Are you actually as ignorant about your own country’s history? It is the very dictators-for-life that the US has put in place and propped up for decades, e.g., the House of Saud, the Mubarak regime, formerly Saddam, the Shah, etc. who smothered any natural political evolution.”

            “Who do you think we’ve put in place?! Are you actually as ignorant about your own country’s history? It is the very dictators-for-life that the US has put in place and propped up for decades, e.g., the House of Saud, the Mubarak regime, formerly Saddam, the Shah, etc. who smothered any natural political evolution.”

            “House of Saud” (I assume you’re talking about sovereignty over the nation) was established by King Abdulaziz via jihad. Is that what you’re talking about?

            “The Mubarak regime” came to power after the assassination of Sadat, who came to power after the death of Nasser. All 3 men overthrew the king you refer to as a puppet of the West. Those are your archetypes for what you propose. They only cooperated with us when we seduced them. In some cases they seduced us. Whatever evil they created has nothing to do with us.

            We actively supported the “Shah,” but I don’t think we have anything to apologize for with that.

            The whole region would be destitute without Western assistance and leadership. No matter what decisions you want to examine in a vacuum, very few people ever acknowledge the mostly positive things we have done. Few of them want to reject modernism, they actually want to reject us from leading it. They imagine some kind of sharia compliant modernism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Iran wanted to be free of English control after WWII, but the Brits didn’t want to give up control of its Anglo-Persian Oil Company”

            You are again conflating sovereignty and private property ownership. Leftists love to cause that confusion because they believe sovereigns (“the government”) should own all property. Do you believe that?

            Should a Western sovereign stand by when another sovereign uses communist ideology as justification for stealing huge amounts of property that was lawfully owned by their subjects or citizens?

            I don’t think so. Especially when you also consider geography and the timing of the cold war. British action was justified on a micro and macro scale.

            If a nation wants to become socialist or communist, and take ownership from their citizens, who will become (in theory) beneficiaries of this “socialism,” that is one thing. But to nationalize and steal property from foreign investors. as if foreign investors are thieves just because they invested, that is absurd. Depending on scale, it’s definitely justification for war.

            See, the reason we criticize you as a dupe of the left is that you parrot leftist “grievances” as if it’s just self-evident that you are right without even realizing that there are other ways to understand the events you speak about. Never mind that I think leftists are wrong, they often don’t even understand there is another view at all.

            There might be legitimate rebuttals to my positions, but you have to make your case rather than pretend there simply is no case for our actions in the first place.

            Basically all of the historical narratives have been hijacked by the left and presented as the only view. They have not been able to obliterate other historical records, so people can if they wish investigate and find out what they believe after a more detailed analysis. But leftists never do. They stop when they realize that “capitalism” is involved, and that’s when they assume they win because “capitalism” is evil.

          • EarlyBird

            “But to nationalize and steal property from foreign investors. as if foreign investors are thieves just because they invested, that is absurd.”
            A bit of friendly advice, professor: get educated on the subject being discussed before you launch into another pendantic lecture about how every wrong in the world belongs to “leftism,” or you’ll just look like a silly, long-winded ideologue who likes to see his own words in print.
            Here’s the legitmate rebuttal (it’s easy when facts are on your side!):
            Britain had leased the land and had contractual rights to pump, ship and profit from the oil for decades. Those contracts ran out shortly after WWII, and were in limbo for years with the Brits given mini-extensions until the election of Mossadegh.
            Mossadegh, a non-communist and outspoken critic of the Soviets, who had been making overtures to the Eisenhower White House for all sorts of economic and military relationships, got into power by virtue of a fair and popular election. The major issue in that election was whether or not to renew those British contracts or nationalize oil production (as most every nation on earth does).
            Mossadegh represented the side who wanted to nationalize oil production and not renew the contracts with the British. And so once in office he chose not to renew those expired contracts, and thereby executed the will of the sovereigns who expressed it by electing him.
            Now please explain how when a lessor chooses not to renew an expired lease, that constitutes “theft” from the lessee, or “leftism,” or an attack on capitalism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Now please explain how when a lessor chooses not to renew an expired lease, that constitutes “theft” from the lessee, or “leftism,” or an attack on capitalism.”

            That depends on the terms of the lease. Most leases have clauses that use language intended to cover such circumstances and the consequences. Especially in heavy industry.

            You’ve reduced the summary to appeal to people who don’t understand how businesses and leases operate. It’s not a car lease. There are also subjective factors when sovereigns nationalize what was once attracting private investment. And finally there were also additional cold war considerations.

            I don’t mind when people teach history accurately. I’m not saying that we always do things without controversy. I’m saying that if people want to teach history, don’t use it deceptively as a weapon to attack Western democracy, civilization or the USA in particular.

          • Moa

            False. You are merely spouting Marxist “Critical Theory” and always attributing bad things as the fault of the West. Please stop doing this. Your have been successfully indoctrinated with Marxism and are now repeating their memes!

            Most of Turkey wants to be secular (look at the daily protests on the streets). It is only because of Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamist goals that secularism is being dismantled (by force). It is all about Islamic supremacism and nothing to do with what the West has or has not done.

            So stop repeating this falsehood.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s hard for me to think of any country that gained more from NATO than Turkey, unless you think of the Scandinavian countries and even then all we did is help them (roughly) maintain the political status quo.

            It’s not even clear Turkey would have survived without our assistance.

            I guess you could also argue that Japan and Germany gained from Western reconstruction, but that’s if you don’t count the fact that we first destroyed their infrastructure.

            But we’re used to being lied about. And we’re used to having domestic traitors repeat the lies of our enemies.

          • EarlyBird

            We can not understand the rage against the West unless we understand the sins of the West, or at least the perceived sins. This is not an indictment of all things American. It is an adult and honest assessment of past policies, many if not most of which were made in good faith, but which were misquided all the same.

          • Moa

            False. You are just parroting the Leftist mantra. Why don’t you actually take the time to listen to what the Palestinian Arabs and Muslims globally are saying? why do you Lefties have to project your own nonsense worldview instead of taking a scientific approach and listening to what the Arabs themselves say (in Arabic, for the benefit of other Arabs).

            When you actually stop project and start to *listen* you will discover the conflict is not really about land. It is about the hadith Sahih Muslim 6985 (go, look it up) where the Last Day will not come until the Muslims have slaughtered the Jews (not just in Israel – the genocide is commanded for Jews everywhere).

            Written in grafitti on the walls of the West Bank is the slogan, “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday”. Innocuous? Nope. It means, “First we kill the people who worship on Saturday [the Jews], and then we kill the people who worship on Sunday [all Westerners; they lump us all together as Christians]“. The is commanded in the Qur’an in Sura 9:5 and 9:29 – and this Sura abrogates earlier [in time, not in location in the Qur'an] Sura.

            The story of the “rage” against the West due to Western foreign policy is a nonsense promoted by Cultural Marxists and their impressive sounding but thoroughly idiotic “Critical Theory” [simply put, this is, whatever happens around the globe, blame the US, Israel, Britain and the West; non-Westerners do not have to own up to responsibility for their own actions, its all the fault of Westerners]. Naturally, this was originally started by the Soviet agitprop working in the Middle East, and is now carried by the Cultural Marxism prevalent in Western media/universities politicians etc.

            Note. Non-Muslims have been hated since the time of Mohammed. The jihad has been waged for 1400 years and will not stop until Islam is stopped. This has nothing to do with land, what the Israelis or US did or did not do (they are far younger than the hatred of jihad), or drones (hadn’t been invented), or Western imperialism (while the current wave of evil Arab Islamic Cultural Imperialism is ignored).

            Stop repeating false memes please. Instead, try and learn how to listen. Places like MEMRI will show you exactly what motivates the Islamists – if you care to actually listen instead of repeating Marxist nonsense.

          • EarlyBird

            We were actually discussing American foreign policy in much of the Arab world, not specifically the Palestinians.

            But since you brought them up, understand that the anti-Israel forces arrayed against Israel were not explicitly or particularly religiously motivated until around the late ’80s when you start seeing the growth of Hamas and Hezbollah and religious calls for violence against Israelis and Jews – over the fight for land.

            “Non-Muslims have been hated since the time of Mohammed.”

            At its height, the Muslim empire was very “progressive” by current standards, and even managed to treat Jews nicely. My point: when they had achieved their secular aims of controlling lands, they chilled out. Like any people, when they are under extreme pressure, they organize around extreme methods and ideologies.

            The Arab world has used modern, Western doctrines to organize itself against Western control, including pan-Arab nationalism, flirted with the Nazis as allies (though not necessarily Nazism), socialism/pan-Arabism, and finally failing all of that, some are now organizing around violent interpretations of Islam to achieve secular aims, i.e., control of their governments, land and resources. That’s where we are today.

            Your charges of being anti-American or Marxist, etc., are childish. You can’t understand the world you live in if you don’t know what’s taken place before it. You can’t know how to deal with one’s enemies if you don’t know what their goals are.

            A critical remark about American foreign policy hardly makes one Howard Zinn. For all sorts of very good reasons and with good intentions, the US has imposed its will on that part of the world. We created and kept peace and stability. Arabs have a lot to thank us for. But the manner in which we have imposed that stability is untenable and has distorted and stunted the political growth of those people (one thing neo-cons understood). They are demanding self determination. Let’s give it to them.

          • Moa

            > “At its height, the Muslim empire was very “progressive” by current standards, and even managed to treat Jews nicely.”

            Blah, blah. That was 800 years ago. Get with the times. And no, the Muslim Empire was never “nice”. It discriminated against all dhimmis. It forced them to pay the onerous jizya or have something bad happen. This is not “nice”, it is an international *Mafia system*. That you have the immorality gall to defend!

            How about you ask the million-jhad-slaughtered Armenians whether they think Islamic Empires are “nice”? or the 280 million victims of jihad globally over the ages? or the Serbians, whose children were taken from them to make janissaries and commit atrocities against their own people? or the Assyrians who are nearing extinction in Iraq due to Islam *today*? or the Kurds oppressed by Islam *today*? or the Southern Sudanese enslaved by Islam *today*? or the Copts in Egypt whose children are abducted by Islamists *today*?

            Your apologetics are so wrong it is sickening.

            Why do you keep being so wroing? because you spout the conceited line that it’s all the fault of the US and the West. Bullsh!t. Islam has been killing for 1400 years and will not stop. The US has been a factor in Middle East politics but it is far less of a factor than Islam (which is why the Arabs have been killing for far longer than the US has been meddling) and also far less of a factor than Soviet policies (with their extremely good disinformation campaign).

            Speaking of Marxist disinformation, I suggest you read General Ion Mihai Pacepa’s excellent book that describes it from the Warsaw Pact side. Hopefully after reading you would stop repeating the disinformation the Marxists have trained you to parrot. You might smarten up a bit and realise who the true enemies to personal liberty are (hint: it’s the ideology running the White House, and their Islamist friends in the Red-Green Alliance).

            You will continue to be wrong as long as you rely on polluted Marxists sources. Instead, if you want to learn about the Middle East you mist go to the primary source – what Muslims are saying for the benefit of other Muslims (the MEMRI and CAMERA projects can help you with this). The Muslims make abundantly clear why they do what they do. Too bad you are too conceited about the Leftist Narrative to actually *listen*. This makes your approach deeply unscientific – which is why your “understanding” of the situation is divorced from reality. Too bad the narcissist President of the USA suffers from the same fatal flaw – which is why he is so irrelevant to what is going in the Middle East, and why he has zero leverage despite throwing hundreds of billions around the region. It’s all because he soaks up the delusional Marxist Narrative instead of *listening* to find the Truth – because the Arabs and Iranians are not shy about hiding their views and intentions.

          • EarlyBird

            Yeah. “Blah blah” indeed. You’re another right wing extremist nutjob. Grow up.

          • Moa

            Lol. You stop debating and start calling names. That’s because your anti-scientific stance would rather grasp on to your false Narrative than listen to the facts I’ve presented.

            You claim that the Islamic Empire was “nice” but you have to ignore a huge amount of history to do so. I talk to Serbians daily. They remember what you choose to forget.

            You’re the nutjob. You decide to ignore facts because you’ve already prejudiced your decision making.

            ” Grow up”.

            Lol. Pathetic. You can’t debate the facts once they’re presented to you.

            The great Carl Sagan once said:
            “In science it often happens that scientists say,
            ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”

            That’s the fundamental problem with you Left-leaning types. You have your “Narrative” and you mistake being “principled” as sticking to this Narrative no matter how many inconvenient facts come in the way (you’d rather discard facts than the false Narrative). Well, a “grown up” sees the “real world” as dominated by facts rather than false Narratives. The ideas are changeable – they’re simply the best explanation for the known facts. As new facts become known to you (eg. the unquestionable historical record of 1400 years of brutal treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims) then your idea should be adapted or discarded in light of the facts. That’s how science works. That’s how enlightened “grown ups” work. It is clearly not how you yet work. This is an opportunity for you to think on how you go about your reasoning process. When confronted by historical facts do you a) use them to modify your opinion, even discarding that opinion? or b) discard the facts and call those who present them as “nutjobs”?

            Grow up, indeed!

          • Gary Dickson

            “… nothing peaceful about the way the Muslim Turks butchered their non-Muslim subjects.”

            Precisely. I am a Messianic Armenian and my grandmother’s siblings all had their heads “peacefully” and lovingly removed from their shoulders by Muslim Turk soldiers of the Ottoman Empire.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

        • Veracious_one

          Jews and Arabs,both Christian and Muslims,have lived as Palestinians,more or less peacefully,for centuries,much of this within the Ottoman Empire.Still….
          Peace between Muslims and anyone else has never happened…peace is Un-Islamic….

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Perhaps.I have never run away from my naivety.Sometimes,I even embrace it.Occasionally it leads to pleasant surprises,and reaffirms my belief in the goodness of Human Nature.”

          That’s fine as long as you’re being supervised until you snap out of it. If you want to drink, don’t drive. If you want to dream about the way you wish the world was, don’t pretend it’s already that way and then start arguing with people who contradict you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Jews and Arabs,both Christian and Muslims,have lived as Palestinians,more or less peacefully,for centuries,much of this within the Ottoman Empire.Still….”

          So you’re for totalitarian religious empires. ‘K.

        • Moa

          “Jews and Arabs,both Christian and Muslims,have lived as
          Palestinians,more or less peacefully,for centuries,much of this within
          the Ottoman Empire.Still….”

          Nope. All non-Muslims were discriminated against as dhimmis, had to pay extra onerous taxes called jizya, and were routinely killed. In places like Serbia the young children were taken to serve in harems (as sex slaves; both boys and girls) or indoctrinated to serve as vicious janissaries.

          This was neither peaceful nor egalitarian.

          Your romantic view of the Ottoman Empire is simply not true, sorry.

    • StanleyT

      Have you posted this same comment in “Palestinian” media? If not, why not?

      • muchiboy

        I have posted some similar opinions in Palestinian media.Some no longer allow me to comment,others I have reported for “hate or antisemitic” postings.But the real immorality,the first “sin”,if you like,was Zionism,and the resultant displacement and de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian (Arab) People by the mainly European Diaspora.And Zionism dwells here.

        • gray_man

          “But the real immorality,the first “sin”,if you like,was Zionism,and the resultant displacement and de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian (Arab) People by the mainly European Diaspora.And Zionism dwells here.”

          Idiotic nonsense.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The owners of Israel are back.

          The Arab thieves from Egypt, Iraq, Syria are beside themselves that the hated Jew can not be murdered as they did in the past.

          Look at the carnage in Syria. No Jews around, yet 100,000+ dead. That’s Arabs killing Arabs. Doing what they do best – kill for “allah”.

          No one is safe. Hence the need for checkpoints at airports world-wide.

        • Drakken

          Hey dummy, the savage islamaniacs lost the wars the effing savages started, to the victors go the spoils.

          • muchiboy

            “to the victors go the spoils.”

            A sentiment right out of brutal,biblical times.Appropriate,perhaps unintentionally.Perhaps not.
            The Palestinians,and the Arabs generally,have lost so much to Israel,defeat after defeat.Yet you are no closer to peace and security then when you won your first war.And now you face the prospect of a nuclear capable neighbor and ally of the Palestinians.Compare this with how America and the Allies treated the defeated German and Japanese nations.They are now among our closest allies and partners.After all this time,what allies do you have in your neighborhood?Exactly.
            For a people and nation who have a history longer and more fruitful than most,and been through hell and back,many times,you show an amazingly troubling immaturity and flawed morality towards others.I have said this many times before,and will again;”You should know better.Of all peoples,you should know better.”

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “But the real immorality,the first “sin”,if you like,was Zionism,and the resultant displacement and de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian (Arab) People by the mainly European Diaspora.And Zionism dwells here.”

          Uh huh. And when did that “sin” occur? We’re talking 19th C or 20th?

    • ajnn

      muchiboy frequently posts racist, anti-jewish things. he is a straight-up racist jew-hater. this is a very mild post for him.

    • Edwin Svigals

      “…magnanimity and trust …” – from Arabs? You haven’
      t been following the news for the past 60 or so years…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “You haven’t been following the news for the past 60 or so years…”

        Try nearly 14 centuries.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “The option is not a Zionist state or a Jew-less state,surely.There are other,less polarized solutions that may serve the interests of both peoples.”

      You need to define what you mean by Zionist state, because the Zionist state exists and is not the source of any significant problems. The problems are caused by the jihadis. Please explain what “Zionist” means to you so that we can explicitly rectify your understanding.

  • muchiboy

    Israel building illegal settlements in the face of world criticism and opposition gives credence to Iran building illegal nuclear facilities.And someday,the two may meet.And it won’t be pretty,for either state.

    • wildjew

      There is nothing illegal about Israeli settlement or communities in Judea and Samaria. That is all propaganda from Israel’s enemies.

    • ajnn

      Israel building apartment buildings is the same as Iran building nuclear missiles ?
      You are nuts.

      • muchiboy

        Lets see if you feel any different when Iran starts building their apartment buildings in Israel.

        • Drakken

          Iran won’t be building anything soon enough if they keep trying to get a nuke.

          • muchiboy

            Well,it worked for the Israeli’s,didn’t it?And let us note that one reason for Assad’s build up of chemical weapons was just that,Israeli’s nuclear arsenal.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Lets see if you feel any different when Iran starts building their apartment buildings in Israel.”

          Why would they do that?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Come on, you have to give muchiyob a break.

      He’s still upset that his side LOST WW2.

    • iluvisrael

      Thousands have been slaughtered in syria, eqypt has erupted and there have been countless atrocities all over the muslim world, but if Jews want to build homes, ohhhh boy – that will not do! You have the selective outrage of most Jew haters.

      • Drakken

        That is why I keep telling those useless leftards to put their money where their big mouths are and go join their pali friends if they love them so much, Darwin always needs a winner or 2.

      • muchiboy

        I don’t know where you have been nightly,but it certainly wasn’t spent perusing the current Western opinions on Syria and Egypt.If the West is guilty of “selective outrage”,it is biased in favor of the nasty,Zionist entity of Israel.Perhaps we are all guilty to some extent,of seeing what we want to see,despite the evidence in front of us.

    • Hank Rearden

      That would be a more powerful argument if world opinion was fair-minded, which it isn’t and if world opinion had EVER come to the assistance of the Jews, which it never has. Iran cannot be allowed to build a Bomb because its rulers are too immature to be trusted with that power. Also, they have said they want to wipe out Israel. Can’t have that.

      Israel has power over Judea and Samaria by right of conquest. Live with it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Israel building illegal settlements in the face of world criticism and opposition gives credence to Iran building illegal nuclear facilities.”

      Good thing they’re not illegal.

    • Moa

      Under “International Law” Israel has undisputed claim to the 1948 UN borders. From there to the River Jordan the ownership is “In Dispute” under International Law. The West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, and Gaza annexed by Egypt from 1948 to 1967. Israel captured Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, and therefore can claim both under “Right of Conquest” but chooses not to: preferring the “Disputed Status” of International Law.

      So, again, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You are merely parroting false disinformation made by the Soviets and their Arab co-conspirators. Don’t be a sucker to disinformation.

  • ShalomFreedman

    This is a rare occasion when I don’t agree with David Hornik Why support building in areas which definitely would be given over should there be an agreement? Why give a pretext to the U.S. to condemn us,and point us out as totally dishonesty and insincere in negotiating?
    I find this action stupid. And when I put it alongside the action of freeing terrorist murderer, an action I find wrong not simply tactically, but morally I wonder about the functioning of this government.

    • wildjew

      Don’t you think it would be better if the prime minister were honest with Congress and the American people when he speaks to them? Wouldn’t it be better if he said “A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will present a mortal threat to the Jewish state.” ?

    • EarlyBird

      It’s smart: it’s the eating of the very cheese that is being negotiated.
      And let the obvious be noted: Israel is winning and winning big and has been for a very long time. Let’s stop with the “woe is Israel” nonsense. They are the victors here – and good for them.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        EarlyTurd,

        The ones crying “oh woe is mohammed”, are you pals, the paleswinians – that they can’t lord over the Israelis, that the “sons of pigs and dogs” can’t be defeated.

        That’s why your pals call it a NAKBA. – a catastrophe.

        LOL!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “It’s smart: it’s the eating of the very cheese that is being negotiated.”

        No they’re not. But if they were, it’s still their cheese. Obviously the “Palestinians” were not all that motivated to actually buy the cheese. They’re just looking to pick up free promotional items at the store…until they can manage to steal the cheese.

        Development doesn’t consume anything. It adds value. And for the most part they should be negotiating over sovereignty, not property ownership.

        So all of your arguments only make sense in a simplified world where we just accept jihadi grievances at face value.

        “Let’s stop with the “woe is Israel” nonsense. They are the victors here – and good for them.”

        But they’re losing little by little thanks to pressure from Western traitors and appeasers. And they want peace. Real peace, not a steady flow of losing all of their gains in order to position the jihadis for another try at annihilating the “pigs and monkeys.”

        • EarlyBird

          “Development doesn’t consume anything. It adds value.”

          It adds “facts on the ground.” It makes those areas de facto Israel. It’s why just this weekend another vote to allow continue building of settlements on this disputed territories occurred in Tel Aviv.

          • Drakken

            Good for the Israeli’s, they build things, the wogs destroy.

          • EarlyBird

            I’m just saying we can all drop the pretense that Israel is some poor little put upon country. It’s the region’s 800 lb. gorrilla.

          • Drakken

            Well when the so called international soialists union condemn them for every action they take because of muslim jihad, I get a tad tired of folks who make excuses for the effing savages.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It adds “facts on the ground.” It makes those areas de facto Israel.”

            No it doesn’t. It means something was created. The creator should own his creation. Sovereigns are overseers. If the PA is up for being sovereign, they first need to prove it. And if they are, they stand to gain from ruling productive lands.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “This is a rare occasion when I don’t agree with David Hornik Why support building in areas which definitely would be given over should there be an agreement?”

      The simple answer is that it’s good to let them know that their lies will only get them so far. They have zero credibility. Freezing normal activities is giving in to terror.

      Should we stop building while we’re negotiating with illegal aliens if they demand it?

      To the totally naive observer it seems rational to freeze building permits to show good faith. The problem is that the good faith has always been one-sided. Completely. Good faith without demanding or getting reciprocal good faith has its limits. It turns in to appeasement when there is no balance.

      Basically, caving to demands in this case would be yet more ill-advised appeasement.

    • Moa

      Um, you do know that under International Law the West Bank/Judea/Samaria is “Disputed Territory”. It was illegally annexed by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 before Israel captured the territory (and therefore, could claim it “by right of conquest” as almost all countries have done).

      Israel builds in the areas because it conquered disputed territory. Before Israel, the Arabs do not “own” any of the disputed territory (because the Ottoman Empire owned it, and there was the illegal annexation by Jordan).

      You can argue that Israel has no right to build on disputed territory, but then one *must* also argue that neither do the Arabs until the dispute is settled.

      Yes, I understand you’ve never head this argument before. The public is subject to so much disinformation (originally put out by the Soviets and their clients) that the legal history is not known to most people.

      In legal terms, Israel has a stronger claim on the land than the Arabs do! Which is why they build (plus, they are building ‘chips’ for negotiation – since it is not the land Israel seeks; but mutual recognition and permanent peace).

      • Sashland

        Moa is correct: “In legal terms, Israel has a stronger claim on the land than the Arabs do!”

        Israel is the Successor Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire.

        All the State Lands possessed by Israel and previously belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which do not not belong to recognized Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan territories, are rightfully governed by israel until such time as the disputes are settled by Mutual agreement. No other Sovereign has asserted any claims to Gaza or the West Bank. Israel can re-oocupy Gaza if it deems it necessary.

        Hey! “Occupy Gaza!”

  • Bert

    A worrying problem is Netanyahu who has repeatedly lied to the Israeli public and shown he is untrustworthy. He and other Israeli prior prime ministers have also failed to assert legitimate Jewish rights to the land of Israel. This has allowed Arab lies to remain unchallenged and take root. Note that Netanyahu NEVER cites either legal, historical or religious reasons to claim any land. He only cites security isues which the U.S. and the Arabs can always trump by offering more worthless agreements in place of the old ones they failed to keep. The biggest problem is not Obama or Abbas but that Netanyahu is not fully Jewish.

    • EarlyBird

      Bert, for a foreign people to come to a foreign land and assert their rights to it based on a racial-religious connection to their ancestors once having possessed that land, is an outrageous recipe for world chaos. It’s what MeCha asserts in the SouthWestern United States, as an example.

      So, Israel should just say it like it is: “We want this land, we have taken a lot of it by force and we’re going to continue doing so until we’re satisfied. We have fought numerous wars and won them. These are the spoils of war so stop crying.”

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        EarlyTurd,

        Chant this.

        FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA…
        PAL-E-SWINE WILL NEVER BE!

      • Jeffrey Orr

        All Israel belong to the Jews. Not the mass murderers.

        • DebRollin

          Yes, All are descendants of the Israelites he brought out of bondage in Egypt.

      • ziggy zoggy

        The foreigners are the Psuedostinian islamopithecines. Israel existed 1600 years before their invasion. Likewise with MeCHAa. Mexico does not predate the United States or any Indian tribe. Those beaners shouldn’t have started a war with America, and the rock apes shouldnt have started a tetrorist war with Israel. Go back to your mullahs.

        • EarlyBird

          You’ll notice that the last names in Israel are Feinberg, Rosenthal, Greenfield and so on, i.e., European names.

          And Mexico controlled much of the SW United States, and Mestizo people way predate both Mexico, Spain and US control.

          • Drakken

            To the victors go the spoils, as it has always been, and always will be.

          • EarlyBird

            That’s exactly what I stated elsewhere on this thread, Drakken. Israel won fair and square. They have to stop whining like victims and start talking like the victors they are.

          • aquataine

            Most who fought and inhabited the U.S. SW were white Christians, not Mexicans. Mexicans did not want to live in the SW’s very rough land and climate.

      • Moa

        EarlyBird, I suggest you take a look at the census data for Palestine during the Ottoman reign. Jews have been continuously inhabiting the region for 3000 years. During Ottoman times only a few Jewish dhimmis were left, but they were still there.

        The Israelis have two unique claims to the land:

        1) They are the earliest remaining inhabitants (the “Philistine” tribe was crushed by Assyrians, and later absorbed by the Babylonian and Persian empires so that their distinctness was lost). Note: the “Palestinians” are Arabs and are *not* descendents of the Philistines – please don’t ever make that mistake.

        2) They are the last remaining inhabitants of the land. Being granted the land at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations (under a British Mandate), the United Nations, and later, by conquest through defensive wars.

        The Israelis are not “foreign” to the land at all. They are the legal owners to the 1948 borders and all other areas to the Jordan River are “In Dispute” according to International Law (neither owned by Israel nor the Arab Jordanians). Gaza belongs to Egypt (as it was Egyptian before 1967).

        • EarlyBird

          There were plenty of Jews there, but not the Europeans who came in and established the country of modern Israel. MeCha can look at census data and point out that Mexican and Mestizo people were in the SW US before, during and after the US took that land over, but it doesn’t give modern Mexicans the right to go “back” to their lands – because it was never “theirs” unless we live in group think terms.
          I want Israel to thrive. As you stated, they did more with that land in 65 short years than anyone else did in millennia. I think they should stop even with the “we were here all along” thing (because the bulk of them weren’t) and just get on with life. I wish them well. What I resent is the constant “woe is me” attitude. They’re winning this conflict hands down.

          • Moa

            EarlyBird, it is good you recognized that the Jews were already in Palestine. They have been in Palestine continuously for 3000 years.

            In the late 19th Century Jews (as part of the ‘Zionist’ movement) joined the Jews already in Palestine. The newly arrived Jews legally bought up swamp areas that the Arabs didn’t want. The Jews then started draining the swamps and through very hard work turned all the undesirable land into arable land. The farms the Zionists created needed lots of labor, so the Jews started importing Arab labor from all over the place. Lots of workers came from Egypt, for example.

            Please take a look at the census data. You will see a rise in the number of Jews and a rise in the number of Arabs. The immigrant Jews have been in Palestine longer than the number of immigrant Arabs. If you understand Arabic you’ll hear it in the family names of the “Palestinian Arabs”. El Masry (“The Egyptian”) is a very common name – because that’s where many of the Palestinian Arabs came from. Even Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian from Cairo. He claimed Palestinian status so he could wage genocide on Israel – as commanded in hadith Sahih Muslim 6985, and also wanted by Arafat’s deeply anti-Semitic Soviet backers.

            All you need to do is go to the West Bank and ask where a “Palestinian’s” grandfather or great grandfather was born. Many will remain silent on this. And the press never asks for the truth.

            So now we have one of your misconceptions dispelled we should now examine the other. The Jews were the first remaining inhabitants, and the last remaining inhabitants, have the right of conquest, and have international recognition from the League of Nations, British Mandate, and United Nations. They can do what the fsck they want with their land and have whatever immigration policy they want – which includes allowing anyone they want to settle. It is only your anti-Israeli racism that makes you whinge about Israelis immigration policy that allowed European, Russian, Ethopian, Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian Jews to settle in Israel en-masse.

            If you don’t like it, tough. They are a sovereign nation and have every right to say who does or does not settle there. Wouldn’t you find it unsufferably arrogant of someone to tell you who you allow into your own country? then why are you arrogant with double-standards that presumes to judge what the Palestinian Jews allow to live in their country.

            Finally, note that the Judea/Samarai/The West Bank are “In dispute” under International Law. They do not belong to the Jordanians that illegally annexed it and occupy it now. It doesn’t belong to the descendant immigrant Arab labourers either (who you call “Palestinian Arabs”), and it does not belong to the Israelis. It is “In dispute” with Israel as the occupying power. The Israelis could claim Right of Conquest but they do not. If you condemn Israeli building in the West Bank then you must also condemn Arab building too – else you again apply double-standards due to bigotry.

            The right of Israel to exist has multiple backing claims under International Law. Only one of their arguments is the unique claim as the oldest remaining identifiable inhabitants of the land. Please be aware they have other claims too.

          • EarlyBird

            Listen: the land now called modern Israel was first settled upon and worked by European Jews in the 1800s. Read that again: European Jews. Europeans. People who spoke Russian, German, Polish, Hungarian, English, Czech. People with names like Rosenberg, Schatz, Greenfield.
            In so doing, they legitimately bought tracts of land, and also attacked Arabs (Haganah, and later, Irgun) who were unwilling to sell those bits of swamp land, as well as some very prime land. And they worked very hard at it
            They took care of themselves. As pogroms spread across Russia and other European nations, more and more European Jews fled to that land. As more and more European Jews came, more and more land was bought and or/violently confiscated from Arabs.
            Finally, with international treaty they established modern Israel, and fought wars to defend it.
            And good for them. The world is better for it. But please, don’t tell me that Europeans had a right to that land because of some historic/religious/racial claim. They settled, bought and took the land, improved it and built a country. Period.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But please, don’t tell me that Europeans had some innate “right” to that land because of some historic/religious/racial claim, or because others with their same heritage were there at the time.”

            They’re rights come from their legitimate sovereignty. Which is justified in part by a continuous presence of their brethren. And that presence is only salient because it rectifies lies against them as alien “invaders” or “colonists.”

          • EarlyBird

            Israelis’ sovereignity exists because they got there, took land, developed it, established a country and defend it. They won.
            Their sovereignity has nothing to do with this ridiculous piece of leftist ethnic/religious/racial group think, which you would rightly rejected out of hand if it was used in support of group you didn’t prefer:
            “Which is justified in part by a continuous presence of their brethren.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They negotiated resettlement in part justified by their continuous presence there. It does have to do with the reasons for retaking sovereignty. You might disagree with this reason, but it was a driving factor at the start.

            In the end, the strong win. But politics also count and if you don’t have justifications that people accept you end up needing to fight more. And they didn’t even need to fight for decades, so their justifications were compelling to many people.

            There is nothing wrong with explaining the nuanced truth. If you explain original justifications and you have the facts to back you up, you’ll have fewer people you need to fight with force to retain your sovereignty.

          • Moa

            Ok, so you have a beef with Ottoman and British Mandate immigration policies. Why not take it up with them, instead of projecting on to the Israelis ? Perhaps then your latent racism wouldn’t get the workout that secretly pleases you.

            Speaking of racism, I think you have difficulty because you think in terms of race (the Left in generally is quite racist – and utterly blind to the fact they are).

            The Israelis don’t seem to think in terms of race/ethnicity. They appear to think more in terms of ‘culture’. As long as you share their culture then you have an automatic right to immigrate to Israel. So, having extra Ashkenazi join the Ashkenazi, Sephardim that joined Palestinian Jews fifty years earlier did not present a problem for the Jews – because they think in terms of culture (instead of the racist terms you do).

            > “As more and more European Jews came, more and more land was bought and or/violently confiscated from Arabs.”
            Who did the confiscation during the Ottoman Period and the Mandate? The Israelis were not in the driver’s seat at that time. “Abandoned Land” was taken in a 1948 law, but that is a different story (just after the War of Independence).

            Furthermore, the Arabs may have held private holdings on plots of land, but they have never held *sovereignty*, because they keep rejecting offers to take it – including in 1948 and every time ever since. The Arabs are not interested in part of the land. They just want to commit genocide against the Jews (as specified by Mohammed in the hadith I’ve already quoted) and because all lands where Muslims live must become Muslims lands eventually (yes, and the West has been enthusiastically importing Muslims since the politicians have been fooled by the Marxists and kept blind to actual Islamic doctrine).

          • EarlyBird

            You’re a bone head. Your so un-self aware that you don’t realize that your entire argument for the rights of Europeans Jews to come and take land in another part of the world in the name of their race is about as racists as it gets.
            I say: The Jewish European settlers took land by purchase and by force. They defended it. They developed it. They built a nation. They also won multiple wars defending that land by others with zero claim to it. They won. It’s theirs.
            What is this place, the Soviet Union where certain realities don’t dare be spoken? Stop with the leftist/racist drivel of “our people lived here first!” and claims of “racism” and anti-Semitism. Stop with the baby talk.

          • Moa

            It’s not about *race*, it’s about *culture*. Repeat that one hundred times until you finally get it. Until you do, you are always going to be playing catch-up in the field of ideas.

            I understand fully what you are trying to say – but you need to expand you horizons away from race and toward culture.

            > ” Your so un-self aware that you don’t realize that your entire argument for the “rights” of Europeans Jews to come and take land in another part of the world in the name of their literally ancient racial ties to that land is about as racists as it gets. ”

            FALSE. You still don’t get it. The European Jews did not “take” the land. As you said, they purchased it in a freely agreed upon trade in the late 19th Century – which is not “taking” at all. All other “takes” were as the result of defensive wars where *sovereignty* had passed to Jewish national culture from the Ottomans and British. Arabs have no claim to the “sovereignty”, although they can claim title over portions of land (something else entirely). Because Israel has sovereignty it doesn’t matter what ethnicity settles – so stop with the racism you blinkered slow-learner.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There were plenty of Jews there, but not the Europeans who came in and established the country of modern Israel.”

            So you’re opposed to a sovereign controlling its own immigration policies?

            “What I resent is the constant “woe is me” attitude. They’re winning this conflict hands down.”

            They win militarily and then lose politically. The “woe is me” is resistance to losing politically.

            I suppose you’d keep your mouth shut if media constantly incited others to kill you for religious reasons, even after the deception based justifications for these calls became widely published and accepted as factual. You’d remain silent because you were “winning.”

  • AmericaFirst

    Poor Mr. Abbas; he really has quite the cockroach problem over there in the West Bank (oh, excuse me, “Judea and Samaria”). Nothing a little Zyklon-B wouldn’t fix though. I could sell it to you at cost, maybe? Oy, what a bargain! You’d be a putz to say no!

  • DebRollin

    Israel needs to stand strong for its people. Never allow evil to push you out of the land that God has given to you or stop housing for Israelis. 2nd Kings 21:7 The Lord said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever.”

  • Walter Sieruk

    The fact remains, be it that some people like it or not. The fact is that the Bible teaches that this land in that area of the Middle East belongs to the Jewish people. This land belongs to them by Divine Right. As in Genesis 28 13-15. 35:10-12. Deuteronomy 32;48-49. Psalm 105:7-11. 135:4. This land also belongs to the Jewish people by the rights of history. As in First Kings 4;20,21,24,25. 8:55,56. In all fairness there is one way that the members of Hamas, Hezbollah and other likeminded Islamic groups can convince God to turn His back on the Jews and thus have that State of Israel be no more. That way is to change the laws of astrophysics, including that of the sun, the moon and the stars. For God had declared in Jeremiah 31:35,36. “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day and the moon and stars for alight by night…The Lord of host is His name. If those ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord. then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation befroe me forever.”

    • Veracious_one

      and the Qur’an says the Jew must be killed…..

    • muchiboy

      With respect,Walter,”Bullshit!”.

  • marcy77

    And I say amen to that..And that does sound like a very good option………….

  • INTOLERANTOFEVIL

    ISRAEL should nuke these arab animals and Washington DC too, God willing….

  • Drakken

    Silly stupid, ignorant libtard. Your living proof that you just can’t fix stupid, you gotta beat it out of them. War is always the deciding factor in all things political, religious and militarily. You get to keep what you conquer, it is that bloody simple. Wishful useful idiots like you are always buried in the so called high moral ground and the problem is, to take a lot of people with you. I just call you and others of your leftist ilk, future Darwin Award winners.

  • William James Ward

    I can not remember nor find any upside to and Israeli concession
    to the enemies of Israel and those enemies only negotiate to make
    Israel weaker. Israelis understand this and it is the history of
    negotiating with Arabs or shall we call them Islamists which gives
    a clearer picture of what the problem is. Islam does not allow
    infidels to control land they claim no matter how apparently false
    the claim is. Time is measured in the strengthening of the surrounding
    enemies and weakening of the Jewish State which will end in a
    great conflagration. The greatest mystery of my life is why it is so
    impossible for Israelis to project and use power especially when
    they are in the right but halt in front of the enemies lies and
    barbarity. W