|
||
|
||
|
Home | About us | Action | Events | Facts | FAQ | Speakers | Links | Join us | Congress | Candidates | |
|
||
|
Palestinian Democracy?
Is
Arafat's hand-picked
P.M.,
Mahmoud Abbas (aka
"Abu Mazen,") really
what
Pres. Bush had in mind?: A
Holocaust-denier, who has
called for murdering Jews
in the territories.
What a preposterous game the issue of Palestinian representation has
become.
|
|
David Parsons on the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem website in an article entitled ISRAEL ON THE ALTAR says: "Blair insisted that he does not believe there is "any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine." In other words, the quickest way to mend the huge rifts that have developed worldwide over the Iraqi threat is to impose on Israel the “roadmap” to Palestinian statehood. . . Incredibly, Israel was repeatedly presented as a scapegoat for the region’s ills, and a sacrifice that will re-unite the world."
|
|
Could a legitimate peace plan have failed to
incorporate
these issues?
The
forced acceptance
of
Roadmap is
reason for
Grave Concern For Israel.
For The U.S. Too.
|
|
Is President Bush Preparing to Sell Out Israel? Double Standard.
|
|
Roadmap: "Advocacy Of A Sham" |
|
|
|
Shame on you Jack Straw! Double Standards?!?! "The Analogy between Iraq and Israel is not only wrong, it is a premeditated attempt to mislead!"
"The Palestinians could have had a state in 1948 when there were no refugees; they could have had a state in 1967 when there were no settlements; they could have had a state in 2000 when there was no intifada. In all these critical instances, Palestinian leadership has been more interested in destroying the Jewish state than in building a Palestinian state. . . [Nevertheless] Israel is the problem, according to the Road Map’s logic.
More in this vein: " . . . the US, Britain and the "Quartet" have published a new "road map" promising a Palestinian state by 2005, with few preconditions. These actions continue to prop-up the corrupt Arafat regime and show that even inhuman levels of terrorism against Israel will not cause a loss of international support for the Palestinian Arabs."
Arab Rejectionism: Until it is Addressed, Nothing will Change.
Monday June 2, 2003:
Recognizing Israel's Right to Exist as a Jewish State. James
Bennet reports that the U.S.
hasn't requested that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to
exist as a Jewish state in connection with the summit. It's sad that
such an
explicit recognition is needed more than 50 years after
Israel's establishment, but
it is.
[Links added by PAC] It is important for many reasons.
First, it would put the Palestinians on notice that they must put
aside any dreams of relocating en masse within Israel proper. Just as
Jews worldwide have the right of emigrate to Israel, so the
Palestinian diaspora presumably will have the right to emigrate to a
newly declared Palestine. (If Palestinians get their own state carved
out of Israel and have the right to flood into Israel, the two-state
solution begins to look like two states side by side, both Muslim and
Arab.) Second, the desired recognition would also help end the calls
of those pretending to be moderates who see nothing wrong with the
existence of dozens of Muslim states but call on Israel to give up its
identity as the world's only Jewish state, tiny as that state is.
Finally and more fundamentally, Israel's existence as a Jewish state,
as the only Jewish state, is so innately and inextricably tied to its
identity that to deny this identity is to deny Israel's legitimacy,
period. By itself, a statement of recognition by Abbas won't get us
to peace, but it seems to me to be a necessary step on the way.
Friday March 14, 2003: Blair and the "Road Map" to Peace in the Middle East. I understand Bush's need to do whatever he can to help Blair out politically, but I didn't find Blair's comments today helpful. They weren't helpful in terms of achieving a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they weren't helpful in terms of the civilized world's war against terrorism. This is from a NYT Times story:
[Blair] drew a connection that Mr. Bush did not: This moment, with a Western-led war possible against a Muslim country, was precisely the time to say to the Arab and Muslim world that "we accept the obligation of even-handedness." "We accept that it is right that we have to say to people that the issue of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is as important as any other issue to us,'` Mr. Blair said.
No, as horrible as the intifada is, the issue of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is decidely not as important as any other issue to us. And the only way it could be is if one accepts the false linkage between Islamofascism and peace in the Middle East. And even if one is gullible enough to believe that bin Laden and his followers are somehow murdering Westerners in Kuwait and around the world in support of the Palestinians, it must be understood that these men are fanatics who will never be satisfied with a peace based on compromise -- like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they want Israel completely erased from the map. Nothing less will do. By accepting the argument that the Arab and Muslim worlds' main grievance is with Israel, Blair has muddied the waters and lost the moral clarity we need to guide us in our fight against Islamist terrorism.
Blair also said at a news conference today that he could understand how the West stood accused of having "double standards." This, together with his statement about accepting "the obligation of even-handedness," [Link added by PAC] fosters the notion that the Israelis and the Palestinians are morally equivalent actors, which they are not. Or, even worse, that Israel is flouting legitimate UN resolutions and must not be allowed to get away with it. Such statements will embolden the Palestinians who believe that they can get what they want through violence and terrorism.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian "Peace Process." Echoing the Europeans, the NY Times blames the administration's failure to pass its desired UN resolution in part on the president's reluctance to press harder for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement:
In the Middle East, Washington shortsightedly stepped backed from the worsening spiral of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, ignoring the pleas of Arab, Muslim and European countries. If other nations resist American leadership today, part of the reason lies in this unhappy history.
But what exactly would the Times editorial board have had Washington do? Bill Clinton put his personal prestige on the line, working tirelessly to achieve peace, only to have the Palestinians respond to his herculean efforts, and those of Ehud Barak, with the unprecedent wave of terrorism known as the intifada. What exactly was the current administration to do when a sizable percentage -- perhaps even a majority -- of Palestinians see the goal of the current intifada as the destruction of the Jewish State?
It is a shibboleth that we would have peace in the Middle East today if only President Bush had been more actively engaged in peacemaking efforts. A true and lasting peace cannot be imposed from without, as much as some may wish they could do so. The Israelis are waiting for the Palestinians to decide that they want to resolve this awful conflict peacefully, as they pledged to do when they signed the Oslo accords.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any questions or suggestions, please,
e-mail
us |