Op-Ed: Arabs (and indeedthe entire Ummah or Mohammedan Mob, both Arab and non-Arab - CM) have been unsuccessful in eliminating Israel militarily, but their lust to see it disappear hasn't diminished.
'With President Obama coming to Israel soon, let me ask what some consider a rhetorical question - do the Palestinians (sic: 'the overwhelmingly Muslim local Arabs, in and around Israel' - CM) actually deserve a state of their own?
'Obama and most of the international community think they do.
'Yet if we take a closer look at the situation there are serious issues which should not be ignored.
'For example, would it be a peaceful, productive neighbour with Israel?
'This can best be answered by reviewing some guiding principles of the PLO and Fatah, which is the dominant political party of which Mahmoud Abbas is chairman.
'From the PLO Charter:
'Article 19: "establishment of the State of Israel is entirely illegal"...
One might observe, here, that pious Muslims see all non-Muslim polities, whether re-established on originally non-Muslim land which Muslims invaded, occupied, and ruled over for some period of time, or existing on land that Muslims never set foot on in the first place, as entirely illegal - that is, contrary to the Sharia of Islam - because non-Islamic. - CM
'Article 20: "...Jews do not constitute a single nation with an identity of its own...".
As regards the PLO Charter, I encourage all Francophone readers to find, and read, Jacques Ellul's "Un Chretien Pour Israel" (1983), in which among many other things he conducts a detailed analysis of that charter, clause by clause, and concludes that it is "a perfect expression of the Jihad". - CM
'From the Fatah Charter:
'Article 12: "...complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of political, military and cultural existence".
'Liberation' = 'resorption into the Empire of Islam' - CM
'Article 17: "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine".
The author might have noted, but does not, that 'armed public revolution' might best be seen, in this context, as a circumlocution for 'Jihad'. - CM
'Article 19: "The struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated'.
The Jihad, that is, does not cease until those uppity Jews have been killed or driven out or forced back into the misery of dhimmi near-slavery, and ancestral Jewish land has been gobbled up, once more, by the Empire of Islam. - CM
'Do these statements reflect goals of a peaceful and productive neighbour?
'It's important to understand [that] when they use the term "Palestine", it includes Israel.
'In other words, both organizations refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence, and see Judea and Samaria and all the land upon which Israel exists as a single state of "Palestine".
'This reflects adherence to the uncompromising extremist Islamic view (he should have written: 'the mainstream Islamic doctrine' - CM) that any land once controlled by Muslims is seen as forever belonging to them. Abandoning the claim for said land is equal to blasphemy.
He's almost there. He's almost got the picture. When enough people in Israel get this, and then realize that it isn't just a few 'extremists' but all Muslims who think like this (precisely in conformity with core Islamic teaching) then they will be in a position to start doing what they need to do to properly defend themselves. - CM
'The failure to understand this by far too many has fostered unrealistic expectations of compromise by Islamic extremists.
Has fostered unrealistic expectations of compromise by Muslims. - CM
'This applies to most world leaders, including President Obama.
'Also noteworthy is the official emblem of the PLO and Fatah, which contains a map that blots out Israel completely, and shows the entire land area in green, the official colour of Islam.
Nice catch, Mr Calic. - CM
'While one can argue about its proposed borders, most of the international community supports a two-state solution.
'However, based on the quotes from both Palestinian (sic: 'Palestinian' Arab - and Muslim-dominated - organizations - CM) it's clear they do not. Instead, their goal is one state called Palestine (and that would be, given the way things are rapidly going in the Middle East, as Islam reasserts itself with a vengeance, 'one sharia-suffused Arab Islamic state of "Palestine"' - CM), with no state of Israel, period.
'Let's go back in time for a moment to 1947, when the United Nations voted on the original two-state solution, which created the modern state of Israel.
'Did the Jews have a charter containing vitriolic statements similar to those in the charters of the PLO and Fatah? Suppose the Jews had published a document calling for the "complete liberation" of Arab Islamic existence in the partitioned Arab state? Suppose they referred to the creation of the Arab state as "entirely illegal"? Under such conditions would the United Nations have approved the partition granting the Jews their own state? Moreover, with such views, would they have deserved their own state?
'The answer to these questions is clearly, 'No'. Yet the world community doesn't seem to have a problem approving a state for the Palestinians ( i.e. for the adjacent Arab Jew-haters - CM), in spite of their clear zeal for Israel's destruction. What's wrong with this picture?
'Let's not forget, it was the Arabs who rejected the UN resolution of 1947 which partitioned two states. Why? Because it included the creation (or the recognition - CM ) of Israel.
'Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said he "will never accept Israel as a Jewish state". Couple this with the referenced quotes from the PLO and Fatah charters, and what has changed since 1947?
Nothing. And one could then, of course, also discuss the Hamas Charter, in which all the western-style language of national self-determination and/ or of liberation by popular revolution, that one sees in the Fatah and PLO Charters - and which functions to deceive unwary non-Muslim readers of same - has been dispensed with, and raw, snarling Muslim Jew-hatred and malevolent Muslim intentions toward Jews and toward all other Infidels everywhere are openly declared. - CM
'Some might suggest [that] the contemporary demand by the Palestinians (sic: 'the local Arabs, mostly Muslim' - CM) for a two-state solution means [that] they accept Israel's right to exist.
"The reality is [that] the Arabs have been unsuccessful in eliminating Israel militarily, but their lust to see it disappear hasn't diminished.
'They've simply changed tactics by demanding [that] they be given statehood, which they refused in 1947 because it meant they would have to accept the existence of Israel.
'Today, in spite of this continued refusal, the UN vote last November 29, upgrading their status to that of a "non-member state", demonstrates that the international community is solidly behind the Palestinians.
Solidly behind the so-called 'Palestinians'...and, therefore, knowingly (or in some few cases, unknowingly, because deceived) complicit in the genocidal Muslim Jihad against the Jews. - CM
'As a result of the vote, Palestine sits in the same auditorium with Israel, in spite of the fact [that] its leader Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party are committed to its destruction.
'Let me pose a hypothetical question: Suppose France's constitution called for the destruction of England, or America's constitution called for the destruction of Mexico? Would the UN sit in silent acquiescence of such a situation?
'Yet a blind eye is turned to the venomous (and thoroughly, classically Islamic - CM) agenda of the Palestinians, with no demand [that] they renounce their goal of Israel's destruction.
'At a minimum this is unfair. In reality, it's hypocritical, bordering on anti-Semitism.
On the part of every Islamic country in the UN - more than 50 of them - it is to be expected; their hatred and rejection of Israel flow naturally from the Muslim Jew-hatred that suffuses their societies. On the part of other, non-Muslim countries, this blind eye is due in some cases to antisemitism arising from various other sources, and in other cases, to their having been intimidated and /or corrupted and/ or coopted and in some cases simply deceived by more than sixty years of unremitting Muslim propaganda against Israel, a lavishly oil-funded propaganda campaign of enormous breadth and cleverness, initially aided and abetted by Soviet Russian Jew-haters, but whose Muslim agents and financiers are activated by the orthodox Muslim Jew-hatred that is hardwired into the canonical texts of Islam and has always suffused Muslim theology, jurisprudence, and daily life. For more on that vast Arab and Islamic propaganda campaign against Israel - which has cleverly played upon and sought to awaken, encourage and inflame all antisemites of the non-islamic variety - see the same book I mentioned above, Jacques Ellul's 'Un Chretien Pour Israel'. Ellul, who was not about to be taken in by nonsense and lies, dissects that propaganda with all the finesse - and the fastidious distaste - of a master surgeon dissecting a tumour. - CM
'At this point again, I return to the original question - whether the Palestinians (the "Palestinians" - CM) deserve their own state?
'The answer should be obvious.
'The operative term is "should".'
Click on the link and read it, and then read the Comments, of which there are many; and it is clear that quite a few others, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have been doing their homework, and are well aware of the Arab/ Muslim and wider Muslim agenda.
The High Court has ruled against a self-styled Muslim cleric who argued he had a right to send offensive letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Man Haron Monis, also known as Sheik Haron, was charged in 2011 with 12 counts of using a postal service in a way that a reasonable person would consider menacing, harassing or offensive.
He allegedly sent letters - and in one case a recorded message - to the relatives of several diggers killed in action in Afghanistan and the mother of an Austrade official killed in the bombing of a hotel in Indonesia. His co-accused, Amirah Droudis faces eight counts of aiding an abetting Mr Monis.
The letters allegedly began by offering condolences to the families, before launching into an "intemperate and extravagant" criticism if Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. They also allegedly insulted the dead soldiers
Lawyers for Monis and Droudis argued the section was invalid because it infringed the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
Justice Dyson Heydon said many people would regard the letters as "sadistic, wantonly cruel and deeply wounding".
According to the Daily Telegraph, the chief executive of Centrica, the company that owns British Gas, Mr Sam Laidlaw, said at Davos that hopes were misplaced that development of shale gas deposits in Britain would be a miracle solution to the country's declining North Sea oil production, and "a game-changer" for the British economy. This was in marked contrast to the United States, where the recovery of shale gas has lowered energy costs to US manufacturers and turned the country into a net exporter of energy.
Mr Laidlaw cited several reasons for his pessimism; for example the environmentalist opposition to shale gas extraction, the density of the population in the gas-bearing area, the lack of infrastructure to distribute the gas and the absence of political will to overcome difficulties, political and other.
However, seems to me that Mr Laidlaw misses the point about shale gas and why it will not be, for Britain, what he calls in his horrible cliché "a game-changer". It would not be a "game-changer" even if it were developed to the full; rather it would be a game-preserver. It would hold back change rather than promote it.
Why is this? Surely cheap energy and vast tax revenues would transform our prospects?
For Britain to hope that the exploitation of a natural resource would rescue its ailing economy seems to me like a man who purchases lottery tickets in the hope that they will secure his old age. Britain is not Kuwait, where a valuable natural resource is so abundant by comparison with the size of the population that all it would have to do to be prosperous is to pay someone else to do the work, sit back and relax as the revenues rolled in. This is an impossible dream — or nightmare.
What would we do with our large revenues? It is not necessary to be Nostradamus to imagine. At least one government would use this free gift of Nature (give or take the costs of extraction) to increase the size and emoluments of the so-called public service, and also the generosity of welfare payments: increases that any subsequent government would find it difficult or impossible to reverse. It would take enormous courage to do so, and courage is not exactly the first characteristic that one thinks of in connection with the British political class. Thus any change wrought by the large revenues from shale gas would almost certainly be in the wrong direction and would serve only to put off the evil hour of reckoning.
As for industry, something rather similar would probably happen. Cheap energy would obviate, at least to a degree, the need to become more efficient; it could (and I think would) be used to maintain wages that would otherwise not be justified and to avoid the necessity for innovation and adjustment. It would allow cheap imports and thereby raise not just the standard of living without concomitant effort, but permanently raise expectations. If the cheap energy were exhausted, the supposedly "healthy" economy would very soon stand revealed as a painted corpse.
Pasteur famously said that chance favours only the mind prepared, that is to say a mind that is alert, knowledgeable and flexible enough to realise the importance of phenomena that it happens upon by chance. In the same way, one might say that gifts of Nature, in the form of resources, favour only an economy prepared. The United States still has an economy so prepared; the United Kingdom has not.
What is the difference? No doubt it is a question of degree rather than of type, but as Engels once remarked, degree, when it is marked enough, turns into type.
Britain would resemble Nigeria more than the US in the way in which it responded to the gift of the gas. A mad politicised scramble for control of the revenues would ensue; they would become the object of political competition, possibly of a very vicious kind. Of course, shareholders in the gas companies and the workers for those companies would participate in the real wealth created, and there would no doubt be a multiplier effect; but the beneficial effects would soon be dwarfed by the harmful ones. In other words, because of out inveterate political entrepreneurialism, we would suffer what was once called the Dutch disease.
Naïve people often allude to the supposed paradox of African countries richly endowed with natural resources that nevertheless remain deeply impoverished. This is not a paradox at all: with the wrong institutions, the wrong ideas and the wrong culture, such resources can be a curse rather than a blessing, increasing in stability as the political fight over those resources becomes more desperate or acute, and undermining other productive activities. In the same way, incidentally, an educated population, if it is educated in the wrong things, imbued with the wrong expectations, is a curse rather than a blessing.
The corporatist culture of Britain, together with an underlying pessimism about the possibility of a durably high standard of living based upon our own intelligent adaptation to a constantly changing world, means that the real wealth that the gas would bring would be soon consumed in an orgy of consumption: sufficient unto the day would be the revenue thereof. But we spare no thought for the morrow not because we are ethical or philosophical followers of the Sermon of the Mount, but because experience has taught us to have no real faith in the future of our country. We are no longer a nation of shopkeepers, but a nation of political manipulators, whose main hope of betterment is a larger slice of whatever cake exists in the present moment. Moreover, we are economic puritans, as puritans were defined by H L Mencken: people who were afraid that someone, somewhere, was enjoying himself. We are afraid that someone, somewhere, is rich, and we would much rather impoverish him than enrich ourselves, slowly, by effort and accretion. Dragging people down is both easier, and to many much more gratifying, than raising themselves up: in whose possibility, in an case, they don't really believe, because there are so many people who would want to drag them down again should they succeed in raising themselves up.
So all economic advantage has to be for the present moment alone; a pound in the hand is worth two in a week. Of course the United States has more natural advantages than Britain; but its real advantage is that it knows how to take advantage of its advantages. And this is a cultural advantage.
PARIS (AP) - The United States is looking for more tangible ways to support Syria's rebels and bolster a fledgling political movement that is struggling to deliver basic services after nearly two years of civil war, U.S.
The Stuxnet Malworm Missing Link- Version 0.5 predates prior disclosures
Symantec, the computer anti-virus software system firm, has found ‘in the wild’ code for a prior version of the Stuxnet malworm that indicates launch in2005. They call it Version 0.5 that predates Version 1.0 that was reported in 2009. Stuxnet Malworm attacked the Siemens SCADA operating systems that controlled the timing of the release of hexafluoride gas to centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran. Further, Symantec indicated in a White Paper released this week, that elements of the Stuxnet malworm version 0.5 may be based on the Flame espionage software system. We noted in a May 2012 post on Flame that Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs. Moshe Ya’alon had suggested that Israel’s much vaunted Unit 8200 may have been behind Flame. We also suggested that Flame could have been the platform for Stuxnet, Duqu and other variants. The Symantec revelations about a 2005 date raises the possibility that Flame and Stuxnet might have been a cooperative US-Israeli effort that began under the Bush Administration.
Israel Hayomreported on the comments of both Symantec researchers and Dr. David Albright, former UN nuclear inspector and head of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Science and international Security:
Symantec researchers said on Tuesday they had uncovered a piece of code, which they called "Stuxnet 0.5," among the thousands of versions of the virus they recovered from infected machines.
They found evidence that Stuxnet 0.5 was in development as early as 2005, when Iran was still setting up its uranium enrichment facility, and the virus was deployed in 2007; the same year the Natanz facility went online.
"It is really mind-blowing that they were thinking about creating a project like that in 2005," Symantec researcher Liam O'Murchu told Reuters.
Security experts who reviewed Symantec's 18-page report on Stuxnet 0.5 said it showed the cyber weapon was already powerful enough to cripple output at Natanz as far back as six years ago.
"This attack could have damaged many centrifuges without destroying so many that the plant operator would have become suspicious," said a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, which is led by former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright and closely monitors Iran's nuclear program.
Although it is unclear what damage Stuxnet 0.5 might have caused, Symantec said it had been designed to attack the Natanz facility by opening and closing valves that feed uranium hexafluoride gas into centrifuges, without the knowledge of the operators of the facility.
Symantec noted in its findings how Stuxnet evolved from Flame and interacted with Siemens SCARDA operating controls software:
In July 2010, Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated pieces of malware ever written, was discovered in the wild. This complex malware took many months to analyze and the eventual payload significantly raised the bar in terms of cyber threat capability. Stuxnet proved that malicious programs executing in the cyber world could successfully impact critical national infrastructure. The earliest known variant of Stuxnet was version 1.001 created in 2009. That is, until now.
Symantec Security Response has recently analyzed a sample of Stuxnet that predates version 1.001. Analysis of this code reveals the latest discovery to be version 0.5 and that it was in operation between 2007 and 2009 with indications that it, or even earlier variants of it, were in operation as early as 2005.
Key discoveries found while analyzing Stuxnet 0.5:
Has a full working payload against Siemens 417 PLCs that was incomplete in Stuxnet 1.x versions
As with version 1.x, Stuxnet 0.5 is a complicated and sophisticated piece of malware requiring a similar level of skill and effort to produce.
Despite the age of the threat and kill date, Symantec sensors have still detected a small number of dormant infections (Stuxnet 0.5 files found within Step 7 project files) worldwide over the past year.
Watch this Symantec video on the discovery of Version 0.5 and chronology of the Stuxnet malworm:
"Let's not repeat the lie, but stand for the truth: Again and again the Palestinians rejected a fair and decent solution."
On a visit to Ireland, Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini is delivering a blunt uncompromising message to this strongly pro-Palestinian society. Below is an extract of a forceful interview with an editor of the Irish Examiner, where he pushes the importance of the two-states for two-peoples approach, which has been the backbone of all serious peace solutions to-date.
Dolan O’Hagan:I am going to cut to the chase with my opening question Ben-Dror. In the eyes of many Irish people the attitude of the Israeli leadership in relation to its various border conflicts mirror those seen in some unionist leaders in the north of Ireland prior to the peace process there, i.e. an intransigent "we have what we hold" attitude and a determined unwillingness to compromise. How do you respond to that charge?
Ben-Dror Yemini: The comparison is completely false. Historically, the Arabs rejected any peace plan based on the most acceptable settlement of two states for two peoples. It began with the Partition Resolution, 1947, that was rejected by all the Arab countries. It continued with the three "NO's" of the Khartoum Arab summit, immediately after the Six Days War in 1967. Getting into current history, Arafat rejected the Clinton peace plan at the end of 2000, and Mahmoud Abbas rejected the Olmert plan at 2008. Both plans gave the Palestinians a sovereign state. So let's not repeat the lie, but stand for the truth: Again and again the Palestinians rejected a fair and decent solution.
Q. …You are quoted as being a long-time believer in the two-state solution but have made it clear you believe Israel should have the same right of self-determination as the Palestinians. Can you briefly elaborate on the second part of that statement.
A. Historically, "Palestinian people" or "Palestinian state" never existed. But the Palestinians have the right for self determination, like any other people on earth. With only one condition: alongside Israel, and not on the expense of Israel. […]
Q. …Can you explain your understanding of a two state solution and, more importantly, what you feel are the main barriers to it being achieved.
A. The main barrier is the intransigent demand for the "right of return" to Israel itself. We all should remember two fundamental facts: First, 52 million people were forced out of their homelands as a result of wars after World War 2, when new borders were defined and new states were established, none of these people received the "right of return". Second, 850,000 Jews were forced out from Arab states (comparing to 711,000 Arabs), because of the same conflict. The difference is that only the Palestinians are perpetuated as refugees. Not because of Israel but "as a winning card for the extermination of Israel", as they admit. So time has come to finish with the fantasy of "right of return", i.e., the extermination of Israel. Many Palestinians understand it, Unfortunately, not their leadership. Not yet. […]
Q. Staying with Ireland. As a nation are we not better qualified than any other to achieve reconciliation of this nature.
A. The Middle-East has a very bad experience with international involvement. The EU and EU countries, including Ireland, finance NGO's that support the "right of return", for example. Do they give any support to the German NGO that support "right of return" of ethnic Germans to Poland or Hungary? We know that your help is based supposedly on "human rights". The result is counterproductive. You perpetuate the problem instead of to solve the problem. […]
Q. ...It appears to me that "Islamic fundamentalism" is a very much overused term in western media. But if one assumes that "fundamental" muslim beliefs do lead to violent repercussions throughout the globe what do you feel needs to happen to ensure such violence ends.
A. The term "Islamic fundamentalism" is not overused. If anything it is under estimated. We should all bare in mind that 99% of the victims of the Islamic fundamentalism are Muslims themselves - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sumaly, Algeria and so on. They are ignored, because we judge the whole area - culture, countries and religion - according to lower standards. They pay a very high price, in human lives, because the west is obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We should all wake up and look at the big picture, and not ignore it.
A piece of Newton’s apple tree The Royal Society, London
Pretty much everyone has heard the story about how Sir Isaac Newton first described gravity: he was sitting underneath an apple tree when an apple fell from the tree and bounced off his head. Newton’s fabled apple tree once stood in the garden of his childhood home, Woolsthorpe Manor in Lincolnshire.
In 1800 the inspirational tree blew over, but the owner of Woolsthorpe saved some pieces of it. On a shelf in the cool basement of the Society’s London HQ are two fragments, as well as two rulers and a prism made from the wood. One of the fragments is in a little pink plastic bag, because it has been on an adventure, up into orbit aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis in 2010.
The apple wood was taken up into orbit so that it could experience zero gravity. The plan was also to drop a real apple on the space station and film whether it was subject to gravity or not. They weren’t able to do the test because an astronaut who didn’t know what they were up to saw the apple lying around and ate it. They had to make do with a pear.
A group of Islamists surround the Abu Maqar Church in Shubra al-Kheima on Monday in an attempt to stop construction on the church's annex, claiming that the building is not licensed, said sources from the Qalyubiya security department.
Security forces were deployed to the area to convince the group to step down and allow work to resume, the sources claimed.
Ramsis al-Deiry, a member of the Shubra al-Kheima archbishopric's Millet Council, said group of Salafis and members affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood surrounded the building and prevented workers from resuming construction.
The church has all the required licenses from the municipality for the construction, which had been postponed due to a lack of security and ongoing political instability, Deiry said. When the engineers, contractor and workers started on the correction on Monday, everyone was surprised by the group of Salafis and Brotherhood [members] who surrounded the building and prevented workers from working," he stated
'Op-ed: Palestinians (sic - CM) reiterate their 'commitment' to peace process, but refuse to recognize Israel as Jewish state.
'As pundits try to gauge the strength of the alliance between Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, who have so far refused to enter a Netanyahu-led coalition, it is important to discuss the main disagreement between the leaders of the Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi parties.
'Lapid has adopted the "two states for two peoples" paradigm, although he has refrained from talking about it in a pathetically obsessive way, as Tzipi Livni has.
'Bennett, on the other hand, has rejected the model out of hand.
'A diplomatic abyss separates Lapid and Bennett, but it has yet to damage their alliance, perhaps because they both assume the "two states for two peoples" idea will never materialize, at least not in the near future.
'The "two states for two peoples" slogan has no hold in reality, despite the fact that it is supported by many in Israel and the Western world.
'Apart from the fact that a Palestinian leader (sic: that should be, 'a "Palestinian" Arab Muslim leader '- CM) who would be willing to sign a peace agreement without demanding the return (sic: that should be 'return' , in quotation marks - CM) of a significant number of refugees (that should be, 'of so-called "refugees"' - CM) to Israel has yet to be born, senior Palestinian officials refuse to even utter the words "Jewish state".
'The Palestinian ethos and Palestinian literature (that is, 'the Arab/Muslim ethos and Arab/Muslim literature', period - CM) do not signal even the slightest willingness to make progress toward recognizing the Jewish state.
'The demand for the return of the refugees (that is, 'the return of the soi-disant "refugees"' - CM) is aimed at flooding Israel with Palestinians (that is, 'at flooding Israel with Levantine Arab Muslims' - CM) as part of the effort to strip the country of its Jewish character.
Mr Rosenfeld would understand exactly what is going on, and where this particular tactic comes from, if he were to read Sam Solomon and Elias El-Maqdisi's book on the hegira, "Modern-Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration"; for review and handy summary, see here:
'All this does not stop the majority of Palestinian officials from repeatedly telling Israel and the West of their "commitment to the idea of two states for two people", while at the same time objecting to any recognition of the Jewish state.
'It is one thing to speak of a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (which would hand over the military high ground to the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, as a platform from which to prosecute the Jihad with redoubled force - CM) while accepting some part of the 'right of return' in exchange for a peace agreement (that is, a hudna, modelled on the tactical and temporary Treaty of Hudaybiyya - CM) which will most likely (which will most assuredly - CM) collapse like the Oslo Accords did, and it is an entirely different thing to view the "two states for two peoples" formula as the headline of the peace deal which is supposed to create a Palestinian (sic: a Muslim-dominated Levantine Arab - CM) nation state in the West Bank (that is, right on top of the heartland of ancestral eretz Israel, in Judea and Samaria - CM) alongside a Jewish nation state in Israel.
'The chances of realizing the second option do not exist anyway, unless "two states" means establishing a Jew-free Palestinian-Hamasnik nation state in Gaza and another PLO nation state, which will also be free of Jews, in Judea and Samaria.
On the military high ground, squatting sneeringly right on top of the historic heartland of eretz Israel. And one wonders how long it would be before such a state, should it be established, already Jew-free, became Christian-free as well, as the remaining Christians, outnumbered by Muslims, were force-converted, or killed, or simply driven out by threats and violence. - CM
'In the State of Israel, in which many leaders and important institutions are against giving preference to the Jewish nation over the large Arab minority, the idea of a Jewish nation state cannot be realized in the framework of the fictive "two states for two people" formula.
'However, since Lapid, Livni and the rest of the advocates of the "two states for two peoples" principle cannot publicly admit that the Palestinians are refusing to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, they are actually rejecting that same principle.
'This is what the sentence, "We do not need the Palestinians to recognize us as a Jewish state" was invented for. It means that our recognition as a jewish state, much like Shari Arison's peace, starts with us, and it also ends with us, just like the "two states for two peoples" idea - which has always been no more than a catchy marketing slogan devoid of any content.'
It's worse than a catchy marketing slogan, Mr Rosenfeld. It's a snare and a delusion.
At this juncture, it is appropriate to reproduce some lapidary paragraphs from New Englilsh Review's 'Hugh Fitzgerald', on the subject of the 'two-state solution', which appeared in the course of a discussion on the jihadwatch forum, many moons ago, and which one will still find there, in the archives (just scroll down):
"...the Lesser Jihad, against Israel, was disguised, for obvious reasons, as merely a matter of the 'legitimate rights of the Palestinian people'.
"Neither Israel itself, nor many in the outside world, seem willing to comprehend that there is no solution, one-state or two-state or n-state, to the Jihad.
"There is only the matter of remaining overwhelmingly - and perceptibly - more powerful, capable of wreaking great damage on those who would attack. No treaty with Infidel states, and Israel is such a state (and so, too, are India, and the Philippines, and Thailand, all of them ensnared in similarly futile and delusive 'peace processes', of one kind or another, with Muslim entities - CM), can conceivably be permanently honored by a Muslim signatory.
"Pacta sunt servanda is a Western idea. In the Muslim world, treaties are not to be obeyed, but if made with Infidels, to be violated, as soon as the Muslim side feels itself strong enough to press its advantage.
"The model for all time - see Majid Khadduri - is Muhammad's Treaty with the Meccans in 628 AD...".
And for good measure, here is the link for a whole article by Hugh - ' Waiting for Hudaibiyya' - on the same topic:
'Op-ed: Attempts to kill Jews will not stop even if Israel releases all imprisoned terrorists tomorrow.
'Let's be honest: the Palestinians (that is: the local mostly-Muslim Arabs; and for that matter, any kind of Muslim - CM) do not need any particular excuse to riot and attack Jews.
'The current wave of riots, which had been going on for some two or three weeks, did not begin as a result of the hunger strike launched by the four prisoners (by the way, two of them are eating again). The strike is just another excuse, as it is clear that even if the remaining strikers will begin eating again, their brothers will continue to riot in the territories.
In Judea and Samaria. - CM
'The truth is that our neighbours simply do not want us.
Litotes. - CM
In other words, it's not that they want a country alongside Israel; they want a country instead of Israel. This is a fact, and it has been proven numerous times.
'Both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians a state almost within the 1967 borders - and they did not accept the offer.
'The forceful evacuation of thousands of settlers (sic: of thousands of Jews - CM) and dozens of communities from Gaza - which was orchestrated by Arik Sharon - did not get us even one inch closer to the possibility of an agreement. On the contrary, the concession only encouraged the Palestinians (sic: say, rather, 'the Muslims of Gaza'- CM) who began launching rockets at Israeli cities and communities inside Israel with the goal of killing Jews.
'The leaders of Gaza have declared a number of times recently that their goal is to kill Jews and destroy the "Zionist entity".
In light of these statements, even if you release all the prisoners - the murderers and terrorists - tomorrow, the attempts to kill Jews will not stop.
'Therefore, and this is a fact, there is no connection between any Israeli policy or decision, and the Palestinians' (that is, the Muslims' - CM) desire, or lust, rather, to attack Israel and its citizens.
'Those who do not understand this, or do not want to understand this, despite the facts that have been proven over decades, are simply naive, or blind to what is happening on the ground.
'And don't tell me that Israeli policy has driven the Palestinians to act in this manner.
'My uncle, Natan Klieger, was shot to death in 1939 in Haifa by Arab rioters. If I'm not mistaken, there was no occupation back then.
'Arab rioters'. I would bet my bottom dollar that - despite the antisemitism that, alas, poisons the life and witness of many Arab Islamochristians/ de facto dhimmis in and around Israel - those Arab murderers of Mr Klieger's uncle were Muslims.
He might have added, for good measure, that there was no 'occupation' when Arab Muslims, in 1518, carried out a murderous pogrom against the defenceless dhimmi Jews of Hebron in Judea, or when in the 17th century the Ibn Farukh family cruelly persecuted - torturing, and holding to ransom - the dhimmi Jews of Jerusalem, or when in 1833-1834 Arab Muslim mobs rioted and robbed and murdered the defenceless dhimmi Jews of Safed, in northern Israel. - CM
'Golda Meir said an agreement with the Palestinians will be reached only when they love their children more than they hate the Jews. She was right.'
No 'agreement' with the 'Palestinians' - that is, with the local Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, and among whom the Muslims call the shots - will be possible so long as most of them are and remain Muslim. For it is out of the core of Islam that they derive their murderous contempt for and hatred of Jews, the arch-Infidels, most bitterly hated of all those Infidels that Muslims are taught, by their texts, to hate and to war against. Muslims do not make agreements with Infidels except when feeling weak vis a vis said Infidels; and when - if feeling weak - they do make agreements, hudnas, truce-'treaties', these will be undertaken purely for Muslim advantage, as an opportunity to regroup and rearm, and will be broken as soon as the Muslims have recouped their strength and feel able, once more, to go in for the kill. - CM