I am now going to break the silence about what are very probably egregious human rights violations in Palestine.

But first, you must excuse these personal and intimate questions: Are you seeking dialog and solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians? Are you European or American, female, between the ages of 17 and 40?

Uh, er, are you a virgin? (I did warn you that this is going to get personal and intimate).

If you are looking for an adventure of a new and different kind, then you should probably head for the Palestinian territories, where you can do a real service to the oppressed Palestinians and at the same time get first hand experience of solidarity and intimate dialog with Palestinian Arabs, who, it seems, rape American and European female activists.

Every .. Single .. Time the Arabs attack and the Israelis close things down to defend themselves, the Arabs scream, the UN screams, the world screams, "economic strangulation!!" What is going on here?

Here's the hidden dynamic that no one talks about, the both politicians and the MSM almost always gets wrong...

...

The hidden unspoken dynamic at work for the Palestinians is, their economy is based on the bracha of the Jews and the flourishing of Israel. Today, their econonmy is almost solely based on world handouts, of which the vast majority are siphoned off. The Palestinian people are completely dependent on the largess of the world channeled and distributed by thugs.

...

Tom Segev poses some interesting "what if" questions in connection with Israel's capture of East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War in 1967 ("What if Israel Had Turned Back?," Op-Ed, June 5). Here are some additional "what ifs" that deserve equal consideration:

What if the Arabs had accepted the United Nations partition plan of 1947, dividing the remainder of mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state? What if in the aftermath of Israel's 1948 war of independence the Arab states had assimilated the refugees into their societies, rather than leave them to fester in refugee camps for generations?

What if the Arabs had created a Palestinian state in the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, when it was held by Jordan? What if Jordan had heeded Israel's pleas at the outbreak of the Six-Day War and not joined the attack?

What if the Palestinians had accepted the "Clinton parameters" in late 2000, calling for the creation of a Palestinian state on more than 90 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital? What if in the wake of Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005 the Palestinians had sought to create a viable society rather than a launching pad for rockets aimed at Israel?

And what if the Saudi peace proposal was not premised on the "right of return" of Palestinians into pre-1967 Israel?

Rather than young Israelis questioning why their parents didn't turn back in 1967, young Palestinians should be asking why, at every opportunity, their parents have chosen conflict over compromise.

Gregg M. Mashberg
New Rochelle, N.Y., June 5, 2007

Let me tell you about an audiobook that I hated.

I didn't hate it because it was badly written -- it was mediocre in the way that mediocre thrillers usually are, and that means it would ordinarily have been tolerable.

No, the reason I stopped listening to Steve Berry's The Alexandria Link is that this book is evil.

I don't mean it's about evil. I don't even mean that it is evil-porn, like those horror books whose authors are pervertedly devoted to thinking up cool ways to torture and kill people.

I mean that this book, to the degree that it is read by people ignorant of history (i.e., practically everybody), will move us closer to a future in which our society permits or even approves of the murder of Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel.

Although it is not a new phenomena, I am getting more annoyed of late at the one-sided portrayal of events in Israel designed to cast Israeli as the evil, apartheid, hate-driven society that seeks to oppress the peace-loving Muslims who "just want to get along". Here is a recent example, from a seed by Keld (titled "Apartheid looks like this").

As a result (of the many checkpoints put by Israel in the West Bank - Y), moving goods and people from one place to the next in the West Bank has become a nightmare of logistics and costly delays. At the checkpoints, food spoils, patients die, and children are prevented from reaching their schools. The World Bank blames the checkpoints and roadblocks for strangling the Palestinian economy.

Pretty clear cut case, right? Jimmy Carter sure knows what he is talking about!

Now please read the same paragraph again, this time with my comments inserted (in italics):

As a result, moving goods and people from one place to the next in the West Bank has become a nightmare of logistics and costly delays. Thus, the checkpoints accomplish their primary goal. Terrorists have had a much harder time transporting their supplies and personnel in order to set up attacks on Israeli civilians. Other terrorists gangs have been thwarted in their attempts at kidnapping and murdering Israeli citizens by these checkpoints. The existence of these checkpoints is credited with saving dozens if not hundreds of Israeli lives (Jew and Arab alike) and many more injuries. At the checkpoints, food spoils, patients die, and children are prevented from reaching their schools. Though the reader may be surprised as to why these people and items are stopped at checkpoints when there should obviously be no reason for this, Israels motive become clearer when one is made aware that in the past, Hamas, the PLO and their brother organizations have used ambulances (with patients and without), women (pregnant or not), food and medical shipments, and children as delivery vehicles for terrorists on their way to murder Israelis, or for explosives being sent to their final destination. It in reaction to this type of unconscionable behavior on the part of the terrorist organizations that the Israel security forces have responded by being cautious of all traffic crossing the checkpoints. The World Bank blames the checkpoints and roadblocks for strangling the Palestinian economy. However, many people who have read of the civil war between the PLO and Hamas over the past few months, as well as the destructive behavior of the Palestinian population in Gaza following Israel's surrendering the Strip a year and a half ago blame the leaders of the various Palestinian terrorist organizations for choosing to war over the needs of their own people and thus strangling of their own economy.

I have seen checkpoints with my own eyes. I drive through them all the time. I would be lying if I said that they are not disruptive to the Palestinian population living in Judea and Samaria. However, I would also be lying if I said something along with the one-sided rubbish quoted by the Electronic Intifada or Jimmy Carter and pretended that Israel was not actually trying to defend itself from daily threats against its infrastructure and civilian population by groups that want Israel's destruction. Israel is not completely innocent. But to pretend that they are completely guilty by painting a false picture accomplishes nothing, misinforms other people and only leads to more hatred.

I happened across an article titled Jerusalem: whose very own and golden city? (which seems to be a plagiarized copy of the same article by Philippe Rekacewicz and Dominique Vidal in Le Monde diplomatique). Although the agenda of the article is clear, I would like to examine a small section of it, drawing on my own personal observations to correct some incorrect statements. I believe that this example is representative of a lot of misinformation that is often quoted regarding Israel.

What follows is the second paragraph of the article, broken up with my commentary:

For Palestinians from the West Bank, access to the city is another matter. If they get through the internal checkpoints, they encounter the most brutal obstacle ever invented to control and restrict movement in the occupied territories: a 10m high wall that will soon completely surround the eastern part of the city, blotting out the landscape and blocking the traditional access roads.

The one thing true here is that in some parts of the areas surrounding Jerusalem there is 10m high concrete wall. However, most of the "wall" is really a series of three fences - one fence, security road, fence with more barbed wire and with electronic monitoring, sand, and another fence. This is the predominant form of the "wall". It is no more than 2-3 meters high, and in no way "blots out the landscape". In more urban areas, a single concrete block (up to 10m tall and not so nice to look at) is used, since it takes up more space (and since it works much better at protecting Jewish homes from gunfire and rocks than a fence does). I know this because I live within 2 miles of the fence and have large sections of it, up close and from both sides, in multiple locations.

It cuts straight across historic highways from Jerusalem to Amman (Route 417) and from Jenin to Hebron (Route 60). For West Bank Palestinians, the monstrous concrete serpent is broken only at four points: Qalandiya in the north, Shuafat in the northeast, Ras Abu Sbeitan in the west and Gilo in the south.

I know of at least one more checkpoint that is open to Palestinians: the Hizmeh checkpoint by Pisgat Ze'ev. I know this because this morning I drove through the Hizmeh checkpoint, along with Palestinian cars with green license plates.

To reach these they have to make many detours, leave their cars and cross on foot. Palestinian vehicles, with green licence plates, are strictly forbidden in Jerusalem.

This is simply not true. I drive from the "other side" of the fence into Jerusalem at least 2-3 times a week. More often than not I am driving alongside Palestinian vehicles with green license plates. And once I get into Jerusalem, driving down Route 60 towards the Old City, it is not an uncommon site to see Palestinian cars with green license plates.

You may argue that these details are inconsequential and that they do not change any of the basic facts of the situation. I say in return that every single one of these false statements are used in conjunction to paint a picture of Israel as an evil occupier bent on murder and destruction. Just a small number of these statements that do not happen to coincide with the truth, along with a manner of research that chooses to completely ignore many basic facts in a situation in order to pain a picture in line with a certain agenda *** can make a multi-faceted, complicated situation seem to be very clear cut. Unfortunately, this type of dishonest journalism that is employed by much of the MSM in Europe and the West does nothing more than create a large population of misinformed readers, and does nothing to help promote anything positive in terms of progress towards a peaceful resolution of this region's problems.

(*** As this article does - the authors spend many paragraphs talking about the evil ambitions of the Zionists who seek to have continuity of settlement without bothering to mention one of the main driving forces behind this ambition: protection and security against the countries that have continuously sought Israel's destruction over the past century; the authors also talk about how it is so wrong of the Israelis to make the commutes of Palestinian workers longer without mentioning the fact that the checkpoints are there in order to stop suicide bombers and terrorist attacks against Israelis.)

"Everyone here is disgusted by what's happening in the Gaza Strip," said Shireen Atiyeh, a 30-year-old mother of three working in one of the Palestinian Authority ministries. "We are telling the world that we don't deserve a state because we are murdering each other and destroying our universities, colleges, mosques and hospitals. Today I'm ashamed to say that I'm a Palestinian."

Ayman Abu Khalaf, a 40-year-old businessman, said he was seriously considering moving with his family to Jordan because of the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the PA territories.

"The situation is very dangerous and many people are afraid to leave their homes," he said. "I'm very worried about the safety of my children. There are many armed gangs and everyone is afraid. If the situation does not improve, I will take my family and go to Jordan. This is not the Palestine we want to live in."

Eilat suicide bombing prompts journalist Fadi Abu Sada to publish blog on Palestinian News Network; Abu Sada says, 'If Israel attacks houses in Gaza and attempts to target the leaders of the Palestinian resistance, this would be the only solution to stop the fighting'

Nothing demonstrates more clearly the defects of Jimmy Carter's latest brief against Israel, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, than the ex-president's reluctance to defend the book on its merits. Rather than take up that unenviable task, Carter has sought to shift the focus away from the criticism -- especially as it concerns the book's serial distortions and outright falsehoods -- and onto the critics.

In particular, Carter claims that critics are compromised by their support for Israel, their ties to pro-Israel lobbying organizations, and -- a more pernicious charge -- their Jewish background. In interviews about his book, Carter has seldom missed an opportunity to invoke what he calls the "powerful influence of AIPAC," with the subtext that it is the lobbying group, and not his slanderous charges about Israel, that is mainly responsible for mobilizing popular outrage over Palestine. In a related line of defense, Carter has singled out "representatives of Jewish organizations" in the media as the prime culprits behind his poor reviews and "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment" as the main obstacle to forthright debate about his book on American universities. (Ironically, when challenged last week by Alan Dershowitz to a debate about his book at Brandeis University, which has a large Jewish student body, Carter rejected the invitation.)

Bluster aside, Carter's chief complaint seems to be that anyone who identifies with Israel, whether in the form of individual support or in a more organized capacity, is incapable of grappling honestly with the issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Carter is poorly placed to make this claim. If such connections alone are sufficient to discredit his critics, then by his own logic Carter is undeserving of a hearing. After all, the Carter Center, the combination research and activist project he founded at Emory University in 1982, has for years prospered from the largesse of assorted Arab financiers.

The world has gone mad. As Lebanon teeters on the brink of Iranian and Syrian instigated collapse, senior American and British political officials urge President George W. Bush to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria.

As the Palestinians push forward with their Iranian-sponsored, Arab supported jihad, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responds by announcing his intention to release thousands of terrorists from prison and throw thousands of Israelis out of their homes while giving their lands to Hamas.

While Saturday found the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh meeting in Teheran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and applauding his plan to annihilate Israel, Olmert decided Sunday that, in the interest of peace with the Palestinians he would forbid the IDF from attacking terrorists positions in Gaza even if doing so would prevent imminent rocket attacks against the Negev.

And now, according to Britain's Sunday Times, Saudi Arabia is becoming the "principal peace broker" between Israel and the Palestinians.

[SNIP]

But of course, like the view that the turmoil in Lebanon is an internal Lebanese affair; and the view that a US retreat from Iraq could be anything other than a strategic victory for the global jihad, the belief that the Saudis are interested in brokering peace with Israel is a complete fabrication. Indeed the "deal" that the Saudis are "brokering" is nothing less than a blueprint for Israel's destruction.

A scary piece by Caroline Glick

I just finished watching a 40 minute show (which is currently available on YouTube) by Glenn Beck called Exposed: The Extemist Agenda (originally aired on CNN). Its focus is to publicize the threats that are being posed to the world by extremist Islam. He takes care to make it clear that this is not representative of all of Islam (and at the end of the show, gives examples of people in the Arab world who are trying to spread the opposite message). However, the messages, propaganda, and hatred, of Jews, Israel and the entire Western world, are an extreme threat to world peace, and the safety and well being of perhaps anyone reading this. If you can spare the time to watch the show, please do so. Below are some notes that I took while watching the program:

Examples of propaganda showed:

• Series from Iran TV that features Israelis removing the eyes from Arab children
• Series from Jordanian TV that features Jews plotting to kill a Christian child for making Matzah on Passover (the classic Blood Libel)
• Cartoon from the official PA newspaper, showing Bush and Sharon drinking from a bottle of Palestinian blood
• An expose on Iranian TV about how Jews control Coca Cola (who is plotting to overthrow the government of Iran) and how Pepsi stands for "Pay Each Penny Save Israel" (which is kind of ironic since Pepsi was one of the countries who gave in to the Arab boycott of Israel for so many years).

Ahmadinejad & The Two Faces of Iran:

• On Iranian TV: "The whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation". Compare this with what he tells US interviewers: "We love the American people as we love our own"
• On Iranian TV:"The rage of the Muslim peoples may soon reach the point of explosion. Death to Israel! Death to America!". On US TV: "We want peace to be established there (in Israel). We care for Jews that live under pressure there as well".
• To the world: "We are no threat to anyone. The issue of making nuclear weapons has no place in Iran's policy". To Iranian TV: "Today the Iranian people are owners of nuclear technology. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people in the language of threats an aggressiveness, they should know that they are making a bitter mistake.
• "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury".
• Netanyahu: "Iran is gearing up to produce 25 atomic bombs a year, 250 bombs in a decade...they are building missiles that will reach the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Like Nazism, they start with the hatred of the Jews, they want to annihilate the Jews, but that is only the first stop. The goal is Western civilization"

Suicide Bombing Propaganda:

• Video from Hizballah television, featuring an interview of a small boy describing how his father committed his act of suicide murder
• The goal of suicide bombers is to use the media to leap-frog over the military and directly reach the home audience.

How Hate is Taught to Children:

• Videos showing a three year old girl proclaiming that Jews are "apes and pigs".
• In a different video, a young girl cries out "With my soul and my blood I call upon thee, my country, with stones and with bullets I shall redeem you, my country, your martyrs and prisoners protect you, my country"
• A Kuwaiti sheikh in a video for parents, telling them what to teach their children: "We seek martyrdom. Oh mothers and fathers: You must train your children every night, before they go to bed, to go on raids in order to liberate Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, and when he goes to sleep...he should recite together with you the prayer for martyrdom...Do this every night"
• Childrens cartoons glorifying suicide bombings, specifically aimed at dehumanizing Jews and legitimating their murder
• Walid Shoebat testifying about how he has personally experienced (as a child) his teachers demonizing and dehumanizing Jews
• Brigitte Gabriel: The government of Saudi Arabia is funding 25,000 schools worldwide, supplying them with books full of hate, glorification of suicide bombers. From an eighth grade book (being used in the US): "Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs."
• Gabriel: "Political correctness is the disease that is killing the West. It is the apathy by which the Muslims are killing us one by one. We have got to throw it in the garbage, which is where it belongs. People have to develop the backbone to stand up to and identify the enemy, because the West right now is plagued with Islamofascism, a disease...that is going to kill our body unless we fight it and kill it first."

At one point in this video, Binyamin Netanyahu (former and perhaps future Prime Minister of Israel) talked about how Condaleeza Rice has said about Ahmadinejad that we should not pay attention to his words, and only consider his actions. He then talked about how a holocaust survivor told him that if there is one thing that he learned from Hitler, it is that when someone says that they are out to kill, murder and massacre you and your people, you had better listen.

Rice's prefered course of action may be more prudent politically, but it also is the most irresponsible thing that one can do in the face of the threats that are described in this video. Now is not the time to just sit back and pretend that these things are not going on. You have all been warned.

I like Jimmy Carter. I have known him since he began his run for president in early 1976. I worked hard for his election, and I have admired the work of the Carter Center throughout the world. That's why it troubles me so much that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His bias against Israel shows by his selection of the book's title: "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." The suggestion that without peace Israel is an apartheid state analogous to South Africa is simply wrong. The basic evil of South African apartheid, against which I and so many other Jews fought, was the absolute control over a majority of blacks by a small minority of whites. It was the opposite of democracy. In Israel majority rules; it is a vibrant secular democracy, which just today recognized gay marriages performed abroad. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court and get to vote for their representatives, many of whom strongly oppose Israeli policies. Israel has repeatedly offered to end its occupation of areas it captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace and full recognition. The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. The same is true in Saudi Arabia, which has separate roads for Muslims and non-Muslims. Even in the Palestinian authority, the increasing influence of Hamas threatens to create Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims. Arab Christians are leaving in droves.

Why then would Jimmy Carter invoke the concept of apartheid in his attack on Israel? Even he acknowledges--though he buries this toward the end of his book--that what is going on in Israel today "is unlike that in South Africa--not racism, but the acquisition of land." But Israel's motive for holding on to this land is the prevention of terrorism. It has repeatedly offered to exchange land for peace and did so in Gaza and southern Lebanon only to have the returned land used for terrorism, kidnappings and rocket launchings.

If there is one thing at which the Palestinians excel, it is public relations. With their elected government ostracized by the West, their task would seem daunting. Yet despite this handicap, they have successfully diverted Western attention for months from two embarrassing questions.

The first relates to money. In recent months, the media have been filled with dire reports about the growing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian Authority. And at first glance, this seems logical: The West cut off aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas took power, and since Western aid comprised most of the PA's budget, a crisis would seem inevitable.

Yet as recent news reports have made clear, the PA appears to have plenty of money. It has simply chosen to use its funds for purposes other than its people's welfare.

Looks like someone could use an audit...

If the State Department has a religion, it's Palestinian statehood. On its altar, diplomats are eager to sacrifice the security of America's only reliable Middle East ally and, ultimately, our own security as well.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has become the high priestess of this cult – muttering mystic incantations about Palestinian suffering under the brutal Israeli occupation and how a Palestinian state would be the crowning achievement of American foreign policy, much the way the Munich pact was the Olympic gold of British diplomacy.

Her recent address to the American Palestine Task Force was modestly described by the Zionist Organization of America as the "most pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel speech in memory by a major U.S. administration official."

In her remarks, Rice confessed, "I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who" suffer the "daily humiliation." of living under the so-called Israeli occupation.

This is the way our secretary of state chooses to characterize the nation that has been our steadfast friend for 60 years (brutal occupying power), to demonstrate her devotion for a people who celebrated the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 by dancing in the streets of Ramallah.

I just happened across a very interesting website: Maps of War. Their main feature is a flash video showing a map of the Middle East. Along the bottom is a time line starting in 3000 BCE and proceeding to 2006 CE. As the video proceeds, you get an animated view of all the different kingdoms, empires and foreign powers that had control over what is today called Israel.

It is quite an extensive list: Kingdom of Egypt > Hittite > Kingdom of Israel > Assyrians > Babylonians > Persians > Macedonians > Romans > Byzantines > Sassanids > Caliphate > Seljuks > Crusaders > Saladin > Ottomans > Europeans > Israel

Quite a list. So many armies have come through here, so many conquerors have laid their claim. So many wars fought, and so many millions killed.

Please keep this in mind if you are tempted to make any claims about how Israel "stole the land from the Palestinians". In the greater scheme of things, those who would claim such a title have barely a foothold in this Land, relatively speaking. In the context of all that has happened here, to reduce everything to such a petty accusation is lacking historical validity (I don't see a country or empire called Palestine in the list above) and upon closer examination, only serves to weaken the case of those whom it is meant to enfranchise.

Continues Khader: "The first connection of the Jews to this site began in the 16th Century. … The Jewish connection to this site is a recent connection, not ancient … like the roots of the Islamic connection."

The Muslim academic goes on to claim the Western Wall, which predates the Al Aqsa Mosque by over 1,100 years, actually is part of the mosque and once served as a post for Muhammad's horse, Al-Buraq.

"Know that this wall is the only one of the four walls of the Al-Aqsa Mosque – the mosque has four sides – this wall is the only one that carries an Islamic name since the beginning of Islam.

The Western Wall dates from the time of the Second Jewish Temple, which was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. The second temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70.

The PA television denial of a Jewish historic connection to the Western Wall is not uncommon in the Middle East. Many leaders of the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount, openly deny Jewish connections to the holy site.

The unfortunate thing about claims like this one is (much like claims that the Holocaust didn't happen) that despite whatever historical evidence you have, the more often you repeat it, the more often the mAsses around the world will start to believe it.

Caroline Glick explores different cases where the media has shown lareg biases towards the Palestinians and Hizballah in their coverage of the wars going on in Israel. This takes the form of meek acceptance of obviously staged news conferences where formerly-kidnapped reporters are made to priase their captors, of wide-spread reporting of alleged attacks by Israel on Red Cross ambulances, and much more.

See the article for specific examples.

In the past, things like this went uncovered and were widely accepted as is. No longer:

Bloggers become a critical component of the free world's defense in the current war. During the Hizbullah campaign in Lebanon, bloggers scrutinized coverage of the war in a way that has never been done before. Their work has exposed the dirty secret of the Middle East that the media has hidden for so many years: The global media and the international NGO community, which profess to be neutral observers, are in fact colluding with terrorist organizations.

As each day passes, the governments, formal and informal legal apparatuses, and media of free societies show themselves to be less and less capable of contending with the information operations conducted against their societies by subversive forces seeking their destruction.

As each day passes it becomes clear that the responsibility of protecting our nations and societies from internal disintegration has passed to the hands of individuals, often working alone, who refuse to accept the degradation of their societies and so fight with the innovative tools of liberty to protect our way of life. The vigilance of just a handful of bloggers brought us the knowledge of the corruption of our media and the network of global NGOs that we have come to rely on to tell us the "objective" truth.

It is up to all citizens of the free world, who value our freedom to recognize this corruption, applaud the bloggers and join them in refusing to allow these corrupt institutions to cloud our commitment to freedom.

In discussions of the contemporary Middle East, few arguments have resonated more widely, or among a more diverse set of observers, than the claim that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict constitutes the source of all evil and that its resolution will lead to regional peace and
stability. No sooner had the guns fallen silent on the Israel-Lebanon border than Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, fresh from his summer vacation in the Caribbean island of Barbados, announced his intention to embark on a mission to the Middle East next month in an attempt to both stabilize the situation in Lebanon and to resuscitate the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. This sense of urgency was echoed by the American former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who claimed that "Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other." And the Jordanian commentator Rami Khouri put it in even stronger terms: "Every major tough issue in the Middle East is somehow linked to the consequences of the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its bitterness kept seeping out from its Palestine-Israel core to corrode many other dimensions of the region."

While there is no denying the argument's widespread appeal, there is also no way around the fact that, in almost every particular, it is demonstratively, even invidiously, wrong.

See the article for more on this line of thought. So what is the author's solution?

Only when the local political elites reconcile themselves to the reality of state nationalism and forswear the false notions of pan-Arab and pan-Muslim solidarity, let alone the imperialist chimera of a unified "Arab nation" or a worldwide Islamic umma, will the long overdue regional stability will be finally attained and the Arab-Israeli conflict resolved. Not the other way round.

An interesting notion: the Israel/Palestine conflict, which has been made the central issue for at least the last 20-30 years (if not more) and is still blamed as the root cause for all regional problems, may itself me the reason why the conflict refuses to end.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Hamas officials last week that the international community considered the Prisoners' Document unacceptable as the political platform of a Palestinian national unity government.

According to a report in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, Abbas explained that the changes made to the document to assuage the various Palestinian factions had made it unacceptable.

So much for the "Prisoners' Document". Apparently even implicit recognition of the existence of the state of Israel is too divisive a position for any government representing the Palestinians.

From a speech given by Brigitte Gabriel at Duke University in October, 2004:

I'm proud and honored to stand here today as a Lebanese speaking for Israel -- the only democracy in the Middle East. As someone who was raised in an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the Arabic world.

I was raised in Lebanon where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

When the Muslims and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17 without electricity eating grass to live and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.

It was Israel that came to help the Christians in Lebanon. My mother was wounded by a Muslim's shell and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Muslims, Palestinians, Christian Lebanese and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn't see religion. They didn't see political affiliation. They saw people in need and they helped.

For the first time in my life, I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would never have shown to its enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis -- who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. I spent 22 days at that hospital. Those days changed my life and the way I listen to the media. I realized that I had been sold a fabricated lie by my government about the Jews and Israel that was so far from reality. I knew for a fact that if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds as shouts of joy of "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets.

The conversation between a Jewish holocaust survivor and a young Arab man attending Hebrew University. This took place in the middle of the intifada, in 2002 on a beach outside of Herzliya, Israel. I haven't looked at this piece for a few years, but I remembered it today while thinking about the animosities present in this region, and whether any prospects for peace in the near future exist.

For a while he looked at me perturbed. " We all make mistakes. But Islam with all its faults is a thousand times more preferable to the abomination that is the West." He finally said quietly. Then he gave me a fierce look and said: "If you had said in any Arabcountry about Islam, what you have just said to me, you would be a dead man!"

"I am sure I would. And if you had said in any Arab country denouncingtheir corrupt regimes the way you are denouncing Israel, you would be adead man too. Yet, here you are, studying at the Hebrew University inJerusalem, allowing yourself openly to speak of subversion and treasonagainst the State of Israel, without any fear of being arrested, let alonebeing killed for it. Doesn't it say something to you?"

"Yes, it says that you are weak, and that weakness will be your undoing."he said seriously."

Isn't there a way our two nations could ever come to terms and make peace?"

Again he gave me that serious look. " Yes, there is a way. We are not like the Nazis who gave you no other choice but death. We give you the chance to convert to Islam, then you will become a part of us and our people willlive in peace.

"For a while we stood in silence looking at the sea.

(This article was widely distributed in 2002 after it was first published. At the top of the page that is linked there is a letter of introduction from the author of the article. To get to the article itself you will have to scroll down a little bit)

Nobody has yet to improve upon the late Abba Iban's assertion that "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". That statement sums up with startling clarity and simplicity the ability of the Palestinians to shoot themselves in the foot if given half a chance.

I bring this up, because with the whole word's mostly negative attention focused firmly on Hezbollah, one would think the Palestinians would just sit quietly and pretend for a moment that they haven't been acting in concert with the other terrorist organizations in the region. For a change, they could actually get to be the kid who has just helped set off a stink bomb in the school bathroom but who stands angelically by while the principal yells at another guilty party who actually got caught. The Palestinians could have been the Eddie Haskell of the middle east!

But noooo. True to form, they have missed yet another opportunity... just the latest in a long line of missed opportunities:

Noam Chomsky and his hard left gang of Israel bashers are at it again. This time it is about the current crisis in the Middle East, which they blame entirely on Israel.

Chomsky is circulating a letter which he got two naïve Nobel Prize winners--the playwright Harold Pinter and the poet José Saramago--to sign.

It is vintage Chomsky, beginning with its first sentences: "The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press." Chomsky typically cites obscure news reports in languages no one can read. This time it's "the Turkish Press." The problem with Chomsky's assertion is that a five minute Google News check reveals that the incident he points to was widely reported by the English language press, including The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, BBC, Reuters, and the Associated Press. (Lie number one).

Read the rest of the article for more lies.

A Palestinian editor from the Gaza Strip was detained on Monday by the Palestinian Authority for publishing a story about the theft of $400,000 from PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar while he was on a visit to Kuwait earlier this year.

The story implied that Zahar was carrying large amounts of cash while Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were deprived of financial aid.

This is the first time since the Hamas government took over that a Palestinian journalist has been detained for publishing a story that reflects negatively on one of its leaders. In the past, a number of Palestinian journalists who dared to criticize former PA chairman Yasser Arafat or his top aides were assassinated, imprisoned or beaten.

Good to see that the Palestinian Justice department has been unaffected during the transition between the PLO and Hamas governments and is still able to carry on with business as usual.

Issa is one of the few Palestinian journalists who have been openly reporting on rampant corruption in the PA. His writings in Donia al-Watan have angered both Fatah and Hamas leaders and activists. The offices of the newspaper have been attacked several times by masked gunmen, who also threatened to kill Issa and his staff.

So much for hopes that "at least Hamas is not corrupt like the PLO was".

The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.

[snp]

It's clear now that those boundaries -- a wall, a fence, a whatever -- are immaterial when it comes to missiles. Hezbollah, with the aid of Iran and Syria, has shown that it is no longer necessary to send a dazed suicide bomber over the border -- all that is needed is the requisite amount of thrust and a warhead. That being the case, it's either stupid or mean for anyone to call for proportionality. The only way to ensure that babies don't die in their cribs and old people in the streets is to make the Lebanese or the Palestinians understand that if they, no matter how reluctantly, host those rockets, they will pay a very, very steep price.

Carl from Jerusalem responds to charges by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post that Israel is a Mistake. In the linked article he tries to clear up some of the inconsistencies (and false history) used by Cohen as part of his basis for being critical of Israel. This includes the some of the myths regarding the "Palestinian people":

• Prior to 1870 there were less than 100,000 Arabs living in what is now the State of Israel, mainly nomadic, certainly not part of a national unit
• The term "Palestine" was introduced by Hadrian (Roman emperor) as a method to discourage Jews
• An interview with Zuhair Mohsen (early leader in the PLO) in which he himself talks about how the creation of the "Palestinian people" was part of a strategy against Israel, to be used for military and tactical reasons. "The Palestinian people does not exist" are among his own words.
• With the exception of 70 years in between Temples, Jews ruled the Land of Israel continuously between 1300 BCE and 68 BCE.
• Between 68 CE and 1870 (when Jews started returning in Large Numbers) the land was mostly swamp land or dessert. See the quote from Mark Twain in Innocents Abroad from 1867.

Israel is neither a mistake nor a crime. It is the beginning of the culmination of more than 2000 years of Jewish yearning to return to our homeland. The manner in which the Jewish people has chosen to govern the Land of Israel has its faults. But being a 'mistake' created in 'Arab land' - let alone being a 'crime' - is not among those faults. We Jews have to learn to stop listening to liberals like Cohen and to start fighting - with God's help - for our existence. Hopefully, the current battle marks a turning point.

The Bash-Israel lobby keeps coming up with new forms of political aggression against the Jewish state. The newest goes something like this: Until Israel is technologically capable of killing terrorists hiding in the middle of cities full of civilians without a single Palestinian civilian being injured as "collateral damage", then Israel should be coerced into adopting a policy of Quaker pacifism, under which it does not respond or retaliate at all to terror atrocities.

In other words, by demanding that Israel only implement 100% pure military tactics, which no other army on earth has ever adopted, the Bash-Israel lobby is, in effect, really insisting that Israel stop defending its own civilians altogether, that Israel should become the first nation on earth to adopt such pacifism as its military strategy. Israel must be disarmed, while terrorism must be rewarded. And if Israel dares to shoot back, then it becomes the aggressor. By the same logic, Britain and the US were the real aggressors against Germany in 1944.

Such disingenuous demands for utopian purity in military operations, even when they come from Israel's own Leftists, are little more than a demand for unconditional Israeli capitulation to terror. Indeed, the only permissible defensive strategy such people are willing to allow Israel to follow is such capitulation.

Let us stop with the rhetorical pretenses and affectations. People who are "only" outraged when Palestinian civilians are unintentionally hurt by Israel, but have nothing to say against the mass rocket attacks on Sderot, are naked anti-Semites. They consider Jewish children legitimate targets of Arab aggression and Islamofascist terror because they hate Jews. In reality, they do not care a fig about Palestinian civilian casualties. Such casualties are merely delightful propaganda tools that can be exploited to demonize the Jews.

"In order not to interfere with the operational activities of our mujahadeen cells, who are even now setting up ambushes for the next kidnapping, all I can say is that it was carried out between two main IDF checkpoints in the West Bank, and during the abduction the mujahadeen went through a number of checkpoints with the hostage. This proves that we have exposed to everyone the lie of the power and attitude of the Israeli security system."

"The abduction was easy to carry out, and the hostage was alive for two days. Before we issued the announcement of his kidnap and after, the Israeli security system couldn't decide who the kidnapped person was. Of course this only encourages us to continue the blessed Jihad and we promise more abductions in the near future."

"Operation 'Cavaliers' Wrath' will turn Israelis' lives into hell. Soldiers and settlers will find us everywhere; we will come out at them from under the ground and above it. We will to attack from every direction. The Salah a-Din Brigades are completing preparations for the next big operation. We will kidnap and murder more Zionists," he said.

And people wonder why there are checkpoints...

If the average Palestinian working for a living is a nice guy and doesn't particularly want Israel's destruction (if that is indeed true), then why is it that Israel, whose leaders are just (foolishly jumping at any chance to get to negotiating table, seems to always get back to physical combat against their attackers.

The linked column explores this issue, and comes to the conclusion that when one side is seeking the annihilation of the other (as the leaders of Hamas and the PLO are seeking the destuction fo Israel) for the other side to ignore the attacks and try to negotiate is a fatal mistake.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves today. The Arabs who live in the countries that surround Israel are not bad people. They do not have horns and do not have a thirst for Jewish blood. And the Palestinians who live in Gaza, Judea and Samaria (or whatever terminology floats your boat) are not bloodthirsty killers or sub-human monsters.

Granted the cultural gulf that exists between them and us is more reminiscent of how we and the Japanese viewed one another during WWII. But even if the conflict more closely resembled the cultural fratricide that existed between the various European combatants during WWI, we would still be left to deal with the only thing that matters; the decisions and orders issued by the leaders.

You can write all the heartwarming anecdotes you want about mothers in Gaza and students in Bethlehem. Those nice people are not in a position to call the shots and are as much victims of this conflict as we are.

Until their leaders (and by this I mean the unambiguous, democratically elected leaders of the Palestinians people) unequivocally and finally denounce all armed hostilities against the people and nation of Israel, the two peoples... ALL OF THEM... will remain in a very real state of war.

(And please read the whole thing before you denounce it as the ravings of an extreme right-winger settler - an inaccurate label in this case).

Israel is in turmoil (what's new?). On the one hand, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has just completed a tour of Europe in which he sought (and failed to receive) support for his long-announced plans for "convergence" – a unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank. After European and American leaders failed to back this plan, Olmert changed his tune. He is now saying that he would like to follow the Road Map, skipping Phase I (wait till the Arabs stop attacking us and acknowledge our existence) and going right to Phase II (negotiate, negotiate, negotiate). I have expressed my opinions to this plan in other places. Suffice it to say, for a variety of reasons, I think it is worse than a bad idea.

The Missiles

While all of this diplomatic and political maneuvering is going on, Israel is under fire. Every day, home-made Qassam missiles are fired from Gaza at Israel, focusing on the Israeli city of Sderot. Although the missiles are crude, and not particularly accurate, they do not need to score a direct hit in order to be affective. They hit buildings indiscriminately, whether it be places of work, private homes, or schools. Thank God, there have been no casualties in the most recent campaign. But the city is terrorized. Parents are afraid to send their children to school. A number of times every day, all residents are given a twenty second warning to make it to a bomb shelter. The Qassams are succeeding in completely ruining the lives of the Israeli citizens living in this city (which, by the way, is within the 1948 Israel borders).

Based on public pressure to stop the missiles, as well as a desire to protect its citizens and sovereign territory that is under attack, the Israel Defense Forces have opened a campaign to stop the mobile cells that fire these missiles. For the most part, this consists of firing artillery rounds at locations from which the missiles are fired. They fire this artillery before, during and after the attacks. Although they have scored direct hits on occasion, for the most part the results of this campaign is that the IDF is firing artillery into crowded civilian areas (the firing ground of choice for anti-Israel terrorists), hitting either empty land or private property belonging to civilians. Families have been injured, property destroyed, people killed. Although Israel has a good excuse for all of this (ie: they fire at us, we fire at them), the current artillery campaign does not seem to be effective in stopping the Qassams. The one thing that it does do effectively is hurt "innocent" civilians, and damage Israel's standing in the eyes of today's PR-conscious global audience.

Hamas vs. PLO

Finally, we have Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Hamas won the last elections, and controls the national assembly, as well as the Prime Ministers office. They have always been up front as to their desire to wipe out Israel. In the President's office, we have Mahmoud Abbas (aka: Abu Mazen). Abbas took over from Arafat, a supposed moderate who desired to make peace with Israel. Abas, a long-time PLO operative and terrorist, who helped to fund the massacre if Israeli athletes in Munich has tried very hard to walk the walk and talk the talk since becoming President. He has been invited to the White House. He has given press conferences proclaiming how he wants peace. He has said that he will stop the terrorism against Israel. However, in more than three years in office, Abbas has accomplished absolutely nothing positive. He has not fulfilled any of his promises to Israel, nor to his electorate.

As a result of Abbas futility (and the corruption of his party), as well as Hamas' perceived strength at having driven the Zionist Entity from Gaza last Summer, Hamas carried the last election a few months ago. They still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. As a result of their policies, the world has stopped providing free money economic aid to the Palestinian government. Workers haven't been paid in month and are close to rioting. They still support (like Abbas' Fatah organization) terrorist attacks against Israel. They are engaged in a power struggle with Abbas and the PLO. It seems that any day, all out war will break out in Gaza between these two groups.

All the while, the missiles continue to fall, Israel continues to fire back, and Olmert keeps on talking about his grand plans for sabotaging Israel.

So What Should Israel Do?

I did not write all of this in order to be just one more person being critical of everything going on, without making any suggestions for actual steps that can be taken. The above is introduction and background for my ideas, that I would like to present. These ideas are not a final peace plan. The way that things are going right now, I think that it is foolish for anyone to start talking about a final peace settlement right now, as if the different parties could implement any agreement any time soon. Instead, I will present the steps that I feel Israel should be taking immediately in order to protect its citizens and territory from attack, and move in a direction that could eventually lead towards an eventual "peace" agreement.

1) Protect Israeli Citizens

Israel has to make it clear to the world (and to its own people) that its number one priority is to protect Israeli citizens. While an Israeli city is under attack, Israel will use any means necessary in order to defend it.

The following steps will be taken in response to Qassam missiles:

• Based on intelligence (ground, satellite, drone), when a squad of terrorists is seen preparing to fire any ordinance at Israel, they will be blown away. Israel will use tanks, artillery, mortars, ground troops, helicopters and missiles to completely eradicate any group of people that is preparing to fire a missile into Israel. Although this may result in civilian casualties (should the terrorist choose to use someones back yard for a launch area), this is just too bad. Israel is being attacked, and they are entitled to directly respond to these attacks.
• Once it is no longer feasible to score a direct hit on those firing missiles into Israel, Israel will refrain from any further shelling of the areas used for launch. As we have seen in the past month, this tactic does not succeed in stopping the missiles, and it only leads to bad things for civilians and for Israel.
• This does not mean that Israel will ignore missiles launched into Israel. For every missile that is successfully launched, Israel will carry out a targeted assassination of one of the senior members of the terrorist group that carried out the assassination. Israel will publish a list of the next in line for assassinations and make sure that all of the terrorist groups know what will be the consequences of initiating attacks against Israel (the same goes for suicide bombs, and other terrorist attacks). These types of threats have worked in the past, and seem to be the only language that the terrorist groups will understand. And if they think it is a bluff, they had better hide.
• If this does not work, Israel will invade Gaza and physically destroy as much of the terrorist infrastructure as possible

Israel will make it clear (in both word and practice) that all attacks against groups within Gaza end the minute attacks against Israel cease. However, if they persist, Israel's responses will increase in severity and scope.

2) Provide Material Humanitarian Support to Gaza

Since Hamas has been elected, the people living in Gaza have suffered economically. The foreign aid that had been pouring in has ceased to a trickle (ie: whatever the Foreign Minister can fit in in a suitcase, after he skims some off the top). Although I think that this foreign aid has long been a crutch for its recipients, the immediate consequence of its absence is that many people who are not directly affiliated with the terrorist organization end up suffering. There are claims of lack of food, sanitation, health supplies, etc. A veritable "humanitarian crisis".

In reaction to this situation, Israel will do the following:

• Using tax money collected on behalf of the Gaza government ($50 million per month, which Israel has not turned over for since Hamas took power), Israel will provide direct material aid to the Gaza residents. This includes medical supplies, food staples, other daily supplies that may be in short order, and tools that can be used to aid the economy in Gaza without supporting anti-israel activities (infrastructure equipment, farming equipment).
• Israel will encourage the other countries of the world to support the Gazans in this fashion (and will try to prevent any plans to funnel money to Gaza through "humanitarian channels". This has not worked in the past, it cannot be trusted to work now).
• Israel will provide absolutely no support for anything that can be related to attacks against Israel. This includes supplying the PLO with 1,000 rifles and 1,000,000 bullets to use against Hamas. If the PLO and Hamas want to kill each other, we will cheer from the sidelines, but we will not step in to support either side. This is because any weapons and ammunition given to the PLO will probably end up being used against Jews.

In short, Israel will attempt to aid the Gaza residents in all humanitarian areas with material assistance, but will not pass over cash, and will not give any aid that could be turned against Israel.

3) No Negotiations Unless...

Israel has made the mistake in the past of negotiating with individuals or groups that were not really telling the truth when they said that they acknowledged Israel's right to existence. Nor were they telling the truth when they said that they would no longer support terrorism against Israel. As I view these both as being (obvious) prerequisites for a negotiating partner of Israel, Israel cannot make this mistake again.

• Israel will only negotiate with persons who represent the majority of both the "Palestinian" people and government. Today, that means that they would only negotiate with the leaders of the PLO and Hamas
• Israel will not negotiate with anyone who does not first publicly declare that Israel has a right to exist, they denounce all violence aimed at Israel, and they will oppose anyone who does not agree with these statements (in other words, neither Hamas nor the PLO). This is not something to be negotiated over. This is a prerequisite for negotiations
• Israel will not negotiate while there is any violence being waged against Israel. This includes attempted infiltrations, suicide bombings, Qassam missiles, kidnappings, etc. There must be ninety days of quiet before any negotiations will be initiated. Any attack will reset the count (and will stop any negotiations in progress, as well as cause one of the reactions by Israel as described above in #1).

So, in the meantime, Israel could be waiting a while until negotiations begin. What should it do? If negotiations cannot begin for any reason, Israel will work to strengthen its hold on all areas of "disputed land" that will be the subject of future negotiations. The message must be sent that Israel will not wait indefinitely, remaining under fire, and at the same time dismantling settlements and doing the things that Hamas/PLO wants anyway. Israel's would-be negotiating partners must know that time is of the essence, and that every day in which they ignore reality, deny and attack Israel, the less potential land they will receive in any future settlement.

Final Thoughts

Many of you who have made it this far will disagree with some or all of the points laid out above. Among the responses I expect in the comments are:

• Israel must not respond to Qassams and continue the cycle of violence
• Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders right now
• Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, racism, etc
• Global Avoidable Mortality, etc

All of these accusations and suggestions fail to address my main concern: the ongoing attacks against Israel that show no signs of ending. Israel's chief responsibility is not to look good for the cameras, and it is not for its Prime Minister to get invited to the White House. Nor is it to rush through a "peace" agreement and earn a trip to Sweden.

Israel's chief responsibility is to take care of its citizens, protect its land and to ensure that it will always remain a home for the Jewish people. I think that the course of action that I listed above is a step in that direction.

However crude, the Qassam rocket, fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel, has nonetheless won its spot as symbol of the moment in the long conflict here. At a delicate time, the rocket is not only raising tensions between Palestinians and Israelis, as usual, but is also dividing Palestinian from Palestinian, Israeli from Israeli.

Most immediately, the number of rockets fired by Palestinians from Gaza, and whether they happen to hit anyone, will be crucial in determining whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict explodes again into high-intensity warfare.

Pretty good overall analysis by the NY Times of the Qassam missile, and the role that it is playing (and will play) in potentially escalating warfare between Israel and Hamas/PLO.

The headlines have been awash in recent weeks regarding the referendum in the Palestinian-controlled areas of Israel. In short, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has declared that there will be a referendum in the upcoming future (the date keeps moving forward, but it looks like it will happen sometime soon). Hamas has been opposed to this referendum since day one. As Hamas and Fatah continue to move towards all-out war, this referendum has been seen by many as a means of ending the violence in Gaza, and restoring some semblance of unity among the different factions involved.

The referendum has also been cited as a very positive development in terms of the relations between Israel and the Fatah/Hamas organizations. People are generally optimistic that it will pass and that it will prove to be an overall positive step in the so-call "peace process" as well as in helping to change the economic situation in the PA. Reuters referred to it as "a statehood proposal that implicitly recognizes Israel". The AP say that it "calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, implicitly recognizing the Jewish state". The New York Times seems to give a more well-rounded explanation, saying that it is

based on a plan drafted in May by prominent members of both factions who are serving prison sentences in Israel, does not explicitly recognize Israel, but it does call for a Palestinian state and a negotiated peace settlement if Israel withdraws to the borders that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war

But what does this referendum really say? The Washington Post has printed a translation of the full text of the 18-point plan, "drafted by senior Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel.". I urge you to read it fully in order to see exactly what it proposes. Though I will not cover the entire document, I would like to highlight some points of the text which stood out for me.

The New State

The referendum document calls for:

• Establish an Independent State
• Jerusalem is the capital
• State will be on all lands occupied by Israel in 1967
• All "refugees" will be allowed entrance

"All lands occupied in 1967" include: the entire Old City of Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, areas including more than 100,000 Jews in established cities and homes. This calls for Jerusalem to be divided and for Israel to be placed in a very precarious position in terms of security: Its capital will be almost entirely cut off to the North and South, and its most vulnerable section - the coastal area between Tel Aviv and Haifa will be only eight miles wide at its narrowest.

For many reasons I pray that this situation never comes to pass. However, let's say that this proposition is mean in good faith. In that case, in order for Israel to be secure, it would be important that the millions of new residents coming into the new state would need to have economic security, a government that fully accepts the State of Israel and honestly proclaims that hostilities are over. This document makes no statement to that affect. It proclaims that a State should be established in the West Bank, but does not make any clear acceptance of Israel's right to any of the land east of the Mediterranean.

The Resistance

3. The Palestinian people's right to resistance and upholding the choice of resistance by all means, and concentrating the resistance in territories occupied in 1967, alongside political action and negotiations and diplomatic work, and continuing popular resistance against the occupation in all its forms, places and policies, and giving importance to expanding the participation of all sectors, fronts, groups and public in this popular resistance.

10. Working to form a united resistance front called the "Palestinian resistance front" to lead and carry out the resistance against occupation and to unify and coordinate the resistance action and form a unified political reference for it.

In short, the referendum calls for all forms of "resistance" against Israel to continue. No distinction is made between attacks against IDF soldiers, Kassam missiles fired against Power Stations, attacks against checkpoints, or suicide bombers blowing up cafes and buses. And this should be "concentrated...in territories occupied in 1967". In other words, it is legitimate to use violence against Israelis and Jews anywhere.

Democracy & Unity

11. Upholding the democratic path, holding general and periodic free, democratic and fair elections according to the law, for the president and the legislature, and the regional and local councils; and respecting the principle of peaceful rotation of power; and pledging to protect the democratic Palestinian experience and democratic choice and their results; and respecting the rule of law, the necessary and public freedoms, freedom of the press, and equality between citizens in rights and duties without discrimination; and protecting the gains made by women, promoting and strengthening them.

14. Rejecting all forms of disunity, division and what leads to strife (sedition), condemning the use of weapons regardless of the justifications to settle internal disputes, banning the use of weapons between the children of the same people and reaffirming the sacredness of the Palestinian blood; and committing to dialogue as the only means to resolve disputes, expressing opinions by all means, including opposing the authority and its decisions according to the law; and the right of peaceful protest, organizing rallies and demonstrations and strikes provided they are peaceful, clear of weapons, and do not transgress on people and their property or public property.

This is what I see as the most positive note: a call for people to actually abide by the rules formed in a democratic government, allow freedom of the press and demonstration, and all of that other good stuff.

Yet, beyond an affirmation that this is what people want, how will such a goal be accomplished?

My Thoughts

In short, the referendum calls for an affirmation of the same terms that PLO negotiators have been yelling out for the past fifteen years. It does not make any concessions at all to any of the points that Israel has expressed worry over. On the acceptability of the overall plan, the NY Times has a good quote:

Israel has said the program is not a basis for negotiation because its version of the Palestinian state would include East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank that Israel says it intends to keep, and because it demands the right of Palestinians and their descendants to return to homes in what is now Israel.

But beyond these specific points that ignore what Bush has called "the facts on the ground" and render those parts of the document into nothing more than a wishful fantasy, I am more troubled by the reception that this has received. This document calls for continued violence against Israel. It calls for the different groups carrying out that violence to become more united in their resistance.

Although many have made a big deal out of the "implicit" recognition of Israel that is made here, that is all there is. There is nothing explicit. There is no mention that should Israel acquiesce to all of their demands, that Israel's right to have a state would be formally recognized and that hostilities would be over. There is nothing in here to say that the liberation of the West Bank does not refer to the entire West Bank (ie: all of the land west of the Jordan River).

So I do not really see anything here to get excited about. If the referendum vote is held and it passes, there will be talk of Nobel prizes, or increased international aid, of lowering sanctions and for Israel to make a return gesture of expelling more of its citizens and handing over more land. Actions of this nature would be foolishness. This (non-binding) document does at best is return the situation to the status-quo before Hamas took over. It's "implicit" recognition of Israel undermines Hamas and strengthens Abbas. But it does nothing at all in moving closer to any of Israel's requirements, nor does it do anything that could lead to a cessation of violence.

In section 14, the referendum calls for "banning the use of weapons between the children of the same people". As it is used, "the same people" refers to Arabs and Muslims. It is a shame that people have forgotten that this term could also be applied to Jews and Muslims - the sons of Abraham - as a whole. As long as recognition of this historical truth is absent, I fear that violence and terrorism will be familiar to inhabitants of this region for some time to come.

Even the guy who was in charge of planning the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and the Northern Shomron does not think that Israel got all that it could of out of the deal, nor does he think that expelling more Jews from the West Bank and giving up more land in exchange for nothing will lead to a better situation.

His main points:

• Convergence (the term used by the current Israeli government for kicking Jews out of the West Bank and giving it over to Hamas) will lead to a two-state solution. However, a two-state solution is not viable
• Even if Hamas/PLO have Gaza and 92% of the West Bank, it is not a state that can support itself. Gaza (365 square kilometers) will have 2.5 people by 2020 and there is no reason to think that Arabs in the West Bank will fare better economically. This will not lead to a peaceful neighbor for Israel
• His alternate solution: Israel gets part of the West Bank, Egypt and Jordan donate some unused land to the new PLO-state, Israel gives up some Negev land to Egypt in exchange. Better for Israel defensively, more viable for Arabs geographically and demographically.

It is interesting to see what are the real opinions of government decision makers after they leave office and are no longer bound to be yes-men.

Many in the Arab world are critical of the US, Israel and European countries for ostracizing and imposing sanctions on the new Hamas-led government. Their claim is that they are punished for using the democratic process to elect a government. However, the very opposite may be true.

President George Bush may have underestimated the importance of tribalism, authoritarianism, the power of radical religious Islam, decades of repression and the lack of democratic traditions in the Arab Middle East, but for their part, the Hamas-led Palestinians have failed to fully comprehend the consequences of democracy. While democracy holds leaders accountable to those who elect them (or should), it also holds those who elect such leaders accountable for their decision. Had the Palestinians possessed a better understanding of democratic concepts, they would have realized that the West has accepted their choice of Hamas as the legitimate expression of their will, and is now responding accordingly...By electing Hamas, the Palestinians freely voted for an organization committed to the destruction of another nation in defiance of any and all international laws...They have turned their failed state over to terrorists and by so doing, they have created an even sorrier mess for themselves. Now, they are paying the price.

Phenomenal article by Michael Totten regarding the how Arabs in Israel who are not on the Hamas bandwagon feel. He goes into Ramallah and talks to a journalist and a shopkeeper, and to the Palestinian Legislative Council where he interviews some politicians. Questions range from Arafat to Hamas, from refugee camps to intifada.

This reporter is one of the most neutral that I have seen when it comes to reporting on Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East (if such a thing is possible). Definitely a worthwhile read.

According to the Jerusalem District Court, yes, it is.

In a recent ruling, Judge Boaz Okon ruled that (Haaretz, 4/23/06):

the PA consists of population, territory and government, and, as it accumulates other aspects of a sovereign state, such as elected political authorities, international standing, police force and an independent currency, it will increasingly resemble a political entity.

The judge continued in his verdict:

"One sovereign state does not rule over another sovereign state and does not put it on trial...even if one state does not recognize the other entity as a sovereign state it is not exempt from respecting the rights of that entity by force of international law.

Carl from Israel Matzav points out that this ruling, if ratified by the Israeli Supreme Court and especially if it is adopted by foreign countries, can raise a number of questions:

• Verdicts issued in Israel are unenforceable in PA territory (the ruling in this case)
• Terror attacks launched from PA land against Israel are not just terror attacks, they are acts of war. Israel will then be allowed (under the international law so often quoted in accusations against Israel) to respond in the same manner as any other country could when attacked
• Israel will have a harder time claiming that the Geneva Conventions do not apply in Judea and Samaria (if Judea and Samaria would in fact meet the criteria of being called sovereign PA land. As the current ruling only addresses land in "Area A", it is not clear if Judea and Samaria would meet this criteria any time soon)

I can also think of some other possible repercussions that could stem from this ruling:

• The "security fence" suddenly achieves much greater importance, and has much more influence in deciding "final borders"
• It is much harder to argue against Israel's right to close its border with Gaza, block passage of workers over the border, cut off electricity, etc. After all, it has no responsibility to have an open border or supply an enemy country
• If and when the PA would claim that they are a sovereign state, they lose much of their bargaining power for territory inside of Israel

In short, a whole new ballgame.

Is this a good development for Israel? The Palestinians? Both? Neither?

Since Oslo, the PLO has received $10 billion in foreign aid (more than the Marshall Plan). Although the world saw this as a necessary charity, it may have done much more harm than good.

In retrospect the aid was a colossal mistake. It relieved the Palestinian leadership of its responsibility for the economic wellbeing of the residents. Responsibility was placed on the shoulders of the international community, including Israel. The generous aid turned the PA into a sort of crippled creature, unmotivated to become a sovereign state, and used to solving its problems by begging others for handouts.

The author poses the following questions:

Did the unlimited international aid provide backing for mistaken, fatal and destructive Palestinian political decisions? Would the Palestinians have acted differently at critical junctures of decision could they not always rely on the donor countries?

Is there any way out of this cycle of Give the PA money >> They squander it, run out of money >> Claims of collapse and economic crisis >> lather, rinse, repeat? Aren't there better things to spend the world charity money on?

This whole kidnapping journalists thing from Gaza is kind of ironic - after all, the only journalists still in Gaza are those who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Kidnapping them definitely is not good for PR.

Update: The journalists were subsequently released

The outgoing Fatah regime in the Palestinian Authority voted on March 5th to grant honorary citizenship to Lebanese terrorist Samir Quntar who murdered a 4-year-old Israeli girl and her father...Various organizations in the Palestinian Authority responded with applause to the announcement of granting honorary citizenship to the two terrorists.

This sets a horrible example for young Arab children - these are the people who should be their heros?

Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections is the logical outcome of a "peace process" more than a decade long that completely ignored what was happening within Palestinian society.

...

The world must base their support for this new regime on two ironclad conditions. First, Hamas must explicitly abandon the goal of destroying Israel and renounce terrorism. Second, it must dedicate itself toward building a free society for the Palestinians.

For 12 years, Israel and the world have imposed the first condition and ignored evidence when it was violated. As for the second condition, not only were democratic reforms seen as irrelevant to peace, supporting a corrupt dictatorship was seen as essential.

If the new Palestinian regime does not abide by these conditions, the free world, including Israel, must actively confront it and withhold legitimacy, money and concessions. But we must also seek ways to support any Palestinian individuals and organizations that do abide by these conditions.

...

This article identifies an alternative explanation for what is at the root of the conflict in Israel between Arabs and Jews: "the fuel of the conflict is not the lack of Palestinian self-determination but the existence of Jewish self-determination – thus, as long as Jewish self-determination continues, so will the conflict."

The author goes on to provide evidence from history to support this claim.

The conclusion of the article:

Indeed, Palestinian efforts seem far more comprehensible if seen as directed toward eliminating - or at least undermining - Jewish sovereignty, than in the establishment of their own independence.

If this is true, then making ever more generous proposals regarding Palestinian statehood will be totally unproductive, indeed counterproductive, for these will induce no peaceable response whatsoever. After all, as Muhsin said: "The founding of a Palestinian state is (no more than) a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

Thus in the final analysis the crucial question the Israeli leadership- and the international community - must ask themselves is: Upon which of these hypotheses should a prudent nation base its policies? The hypothesis which can account for all the above phenomena or the hypothesis which accounts for none of them?

Reference from Israel Matzav

"Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah movement's armed wing, claimed responsibility on Monday for firing three homemade rockets at the Israeli crossing of Kissuvim eastern of Gaza Strip."

Note: Fatah is Arafafat's political party. Some things in the PLO never change.

Hamas's failure to recognize Israel means the end of a two-state solution on this side of the Jordan River, according to MK Benny Elon, who heads the National Union and National Religious Party.
...
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said he thought it was obvious that a two-state solution was not possible with Hamas at the PA's helm, and that he was surprised at the question.

"Israel doesn't refuse to recognize a Palestinian state. It does refuse to recognize a Palestinian state that does not recognize Israel and that is aimed at destroying it," he said.

In its charter, Hamas claims that "there is no place here for Jews or for any non-Muslim and that it is its holy duty to destroy Israel," said Steinitz. It would use any military or economic means it has to destroy Israel.

A new study has been released that challenges the notion that Israel faces a grave demographic threat from the Arab population living within its borders. this notion has been a very important part of Israeli politics for the past decade. If it were to fall, the motivation for a forced "peace-process" might go with it.

This article sets forth some very cogent reasons as to why extablishing a Palestinian State might not be in the best interests of Israel or of the rest of the world:

• The cornerstone of Hamas' program, its very raison-d'etre, is the destruction of Israel, replacing it with an Islamist, fundamentalist, intolerant state reaching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and beyond. The dominant theme of all their statements includes no territorial compromise - no peace even if Israel were to hand over all the territories and eastern Jerusalem; at most, some sort of temporary armistice (hudna).
• The world attaches much too great an importance to the question of whether Hamas will recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel doesn't need approval from the likes of Hamas - rather it's the other way around: Should Israel recognize, under present circumstances, the Palestinians' right to a state?
• The fact that Hamas and its future government refuse to take upon themselves the most fundamental obligations under the "roadmap," let alone previous agreements such as Oslo, Paris, Wye, and Sharm E-Sheik, and to do away with the "right of return," dictates a reevaluation of Palestinian statehood as an American and Israeli goal.
• An often-cited argument for Palestinian statehood is that it would solve the Palestinian refugee problem once and for all. Yet it should be clear to anyone that the future Palestinian state won't be able, economically and demographically, to absorb more than about 10-15 percent of the total refugee population, and the refugee issue will continue to be a ticking time-bomb endangering the stability of the whole Middle East.
• Putin's invitation to Hamas to visit the Kremlin is part of the former Soviet, as well as the present Russian, government's policy to counterbalance America's dominance in the world by establishing a political base for itself in the Arab and Islamic worlds - thus Iran, thus Hamas.

The author raises some very good points. And the idea itself is worthy of discussion: right now, it seems like a forgone conclusion to many people that establishing a Palestinian State is the only possible solution. The only thing left to decide is when it will happen, under what conditions, and where are the borders going to be. However, is this necessary something that has to happen? Is it something that will really solve the current situation? Would this really be in America's and Israel's best interest?

(Reference from Israel Matzav)