Friday, December 9, 2011

The Settlement Ruse.

Doodad

Israel Matzav points out :

"In an interview with the Arabic radio station As-Shams two weeks ago, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat​ said that based on an aerial photograph provided by European sources, the settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank.So if settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank, why does the entire West deem them the main obstacle to peace? Because admitting that settlements aren’t the main obstacle to peace would force it to confront an unpalatable truth: that the real obstacle to peace is Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in any borders."

Amen.

Any doubt? Well, consider:

"The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against the Palestinians' diplomatic mission to the UK for displaying a map which included the whole of Israel as part of Palestine."

We hear about this map kind of thing all the time, so no one should have any illusions about  the real Palestinian plan.

.

8 comments:

  1. Here's an obvious truth.  The Palestinian leadership wants victory, not compromise.

    Here's another obvious truth.  Because the Palestinian leadership wants victory, not compromise, they refuse to compromise.  They refuse to negotiate.

    And here's yet another obvious truth.  The Obama administration blames Israel for Palestinian intransigence.  It is entirely unjust to do so, but they do so, nonetheless, by blaming "the settlers" for Palestinian refusal to negotiate an end to hostilities.

    And, finally, a last obvious truth is that liberal Jewish weenies validate Palestinian intransigence by parroting the "Palestinian narrative" on the alleged evil that is those settlers.

    Every time that liberal Jews scream to the heavens about "settlers" it gives the Palestinians every reason to maintain their racist demand for a Judenrein state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ruh roh. Progressive heads will explode:

    "(AGI) Washington - The Republican White House candidate Newt Gingrich has accused Obama of taking sides with the Palestinians. The former Speaker and election front-runner also said that the Palestinians are 'an invented people.' Gingrich said that were he to be impartial between a civil law-abiding society and a group of terrorists shooting missiles every day, this would not in fact constitute being impartial but would mean favouring the terrorists. Mr Gingrich does not differentiate between the ANP and Hamas. Interviewed on Israeli TV, Gringrich said 'I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state,' while 'we have invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. [That's why] they had a chance to go many places.' . ."

    http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201112092129-pol-ren1106-palestinians_do_not_exist_they_are_terrorists_gingrich

    I still don't like Newt but what's to argue with:

     "were he to be impartial between a civil law-abiding society and a group of terrorists shooting missiles every day, this would not in fact constitute being impartial but would mean favouring the terrorists."

    Now, let's get some Democrats believing and saying that. 

    ReplyDelete
  3. This president is smoothing the way for the rise of Islamic fascism throughout the region.

    It would be refreshing to have leadership that actually opposes our enemies, rather than one that coddles them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Classic case of saying one thing while doing another. Why, I cannot fathom. I mean, I don't particularly think he is a secret Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, no, of course he's not.

    My suspicion is that like most progressives, he simply doesn't take the rise of Islamic fascism seriously or thinks that some Islamic fascists, like the Brotherhood, are actually reasonable "moderates."

    The thing is, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Islamist because Radical Islam is both revolutionary and genocidal.

    Historians will look back on this administration as the administration in power when Radical Islam took over country after country in the Middle East.

    Meanwhile, most progressives are keeping their heads firmly implanted in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's like Spencer said about many who align with the jihadists, directly or indirectly. They think they are smarter than the the jihadists and will control them once the greater enemy of capitalism is quashed. Are they in for an awakening.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Y'know, I never used to worry myself about this kind of thing.  Terrorism?  Really?  Like most progressives I understood that the Bush administration used the "War on Terror" to bolster political power and to move finances from here to there.

    And, yet, we are now seeing all these countries marching in that direction.  It was Iran, Hamas in Gaza, and Hez in Lebanon, and Burma.

    And now it is Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Burma, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, and Gaza.

    Well, that's just terrific, Obama administration.

    Yes. Yes. I understand that you have no control over events and that therefore you have no responsibility for anything.

    I get that.

    But do you get what is going on in the Middle East, because it looks pretty clear that Radical Islam has gotten a nice shot in the arm from the misnamed "Arab Spring."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep, they are marching. No doubt.

    Obama has played this and other things poorly. I was never enamored by him, even when he ran. No one would accuse me of being a hard core supporter.

    I just think that the Arab Spring was waiting to happen, and it did. The energy was long building. We give ourselves too much credit that we could control it. But we will have to deal with it, and in that there may be the ingredients that helpd the West, and Obama, see the reality.

    For all the talk, Republicans have made some terrible foreign policy blunders, too. They can be too black and white in approach while Democrats take so much into account that the result pleases no one.

    Wish it was easier to figure out, but it's not, especially when the discourse is so perverted.

    ReplyDelete