Thursday, April 24, 2014

Fatah = Hamas

Michael L.

HAMAS1Attila Somfalvi, writing in Y-Net, tells us the following:
Israel has pressed pause on negotiations and will take steps to cause financial pain for the Palestinians, in light of an announcement Wednesday that Fatah and Hamas have reconciled and are to form a unity government, but has decided against toppling the Palestinian Authority altogether.

"Until now, we have warned them about sanctions, and now we will impose them," a political source said. "The moment they announced that they were becoming one body, negotiations became impossible. Abbas has gone a step too far. There will be no political contacts with the Palestinians."
Somehow I doubt that Israel is going to give up all high-level political contacts with the local Arabs, yet that probably is exactly what they should do. Israel cannot negotiate with people who call specifically for the genocide of the Jews directly in their charter and Hamas calls specifically for the genocide of the Jews directly in their charter.

This is a little section from the Hamas Charter that reflects a hadith calling for slaughter:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem."
Of course, anyone paying attention, without ideological blinkers, knew that dictator Abbas was not an actual partner for peace due to the fact that the Palestinian Authority continues to incite hatred for Jews via PA media and little things like welcoming home the murderers of Holocaust survivors as national heroes.

Barack Obama recently claimed that Mahmoud Abbas "consistently renounced violence."

Here is a news flash for you folks:

Barack Obama lied.

Obama knows full well that Abbas has never in any genuine way renounced violence toward innocent Israeli civilians because Abbas does not believe in any such creature as an "innocent Israeli civilian." Furthermore, how can Abbas or Fatah or the Palestinian Authority claim to renounce violence even as they name government buildings and roads and ice cream parlors for those who are known for nothing else beyond committing violence specifically targeted toward Jews?

I have always favored a negotiated two-state solution to the Arab-Israel conflict, but there comes a point wherein one must rethink former presumptions.  In my view, it is long past time for world Jewry to look beyond the failed Oslo Accords and to think in fresh ways about how to handle the ongoing aggression against the Jews in the Middle East.  Since Arab political forces throughout the area have consistently rejected a Palestinian-Arab state in peace next to Israel, with a full cessation of hostilities and an acknowledged end of the conflict, then Israel has no choice but to act unilaterally.

Sometimes people like to tell me what my political positions are without any reference to my political opinions.  I was even told in the comments over at the Times of Israel under a recent piece that clearly I must have a racist disdain for Native Americans.

Why this person said such a thing is entirely beyond me unless he thinks along the lines of:

Arabs = Indigenous Innocent Natives /  Jews = Aggressive Imperialist Interlopers.

In any case, all of our views on the conflict need to evolve and change according to evolving and changing circumstances.

My position is this:

Israel needs to declare her final borders and remove the IDF to behind those borders.

Period.  End of story.  {As I like to say.}

I am not an Israeli, so it is not up to me to decide just where those borders should be.

If Israel thinks that retreating to the 1949 armistice lines will result in a manageable situation, then so be it.  If, on the other hand, Israel were to go Naftali Bennett's route and annex some version of Area C, leaving the rest of the region for yet another Arab state, then that is fine with me, as well.  Finally, if Israel decides to annex the entirety of Judea and Samaria, from the river to the sea, that is an option, but it is an option, like the other two, with significant difficulties.

If Israel annexes the so-called "West Bank" then it will need to provide a pathway for citizenship for the local Arab population.  I do not believe in loyalty oaths because they are emphatically meaningless, but there needs to be a reasonable pathway.

What I would recommend is that non-citizens of Israel who live in Judea and Samaria who wish to become citizens of the State of Israel be required to complete two to three years of community service.  If at the end of that period the individual has shown him or herself to be non-hostile then the person should be granted full citizenship.  Those who refuse such service should maintain full civil liberties, but no rights to the national franchise.  Those who prove themselves to be hostile, of course, should be denied the national franchise.  The tricky part is determining fair and consistent metrics for what constitutes hostility.

The result of such a move, however, would be full Israeli control of Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan River and a significant increase in the Arab population of the Jewish State of Israel.  The risk of the single-state solution, which people like Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman champion, is that the wrong demographics could threaten Israel as a Jewish State.  If Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria at what point would the Jews find themselves as, yet again, an oppressed minority under a viciously anti-Semitic Muslim regime?

What people on the hard-left argue is that the Jewish concern around demography within Israel is flat-out racism.  They make this argument because they simply do not care about Jewish well-being and therefore entirely discount the history of the Jewish people under circumstances of dhimmitude and submission within Islam for thirteen hundred years.  Those on the moderate-left, who actually do care about the well-being of persecuted minorities, understand that the Jewish people will never again allow ourselves to live or die according to the whims of a non-Jewish majority.

What people on the hard-right argue is for full annexation of Judea and Samaria and to heck with the Arabs.  Expel them to Jordan if need be.  What people on the moderate right argue is that the demographic threat is overblown and that the Palestinian Authority has grossly (and intentionally) over-inflated the numbers of Arabs who live in the area and thus a single-state solution is not a threat to Zionism.

I consider it a good thing that Jewish people are beginning to free themselves from the shackles of Oslo.

It was a pleasant dream for awhile, but ultimately it failed and the reason that it failed is because the Arabs of the Middle East have no intention whatsoever of giving up their Long War Against the Jews.  Why should they?  Jewish sovereignty on any land that was once part of the Dar al-Islam must, according to al-Sharia, remain within Dar al-Islam forever.  Furthermore, the Arab governments can simply continue to brutally use the Palestinian-Arabs as pawns in their never-ending cosmic war against the Eternal Jew.

What we cannot do, however, is remain chained to failed ideologies, even if our friends wish us to remain so... for our own alleged best benefit.

It is time to move on and rethink and what that means is acknowledging the failure of Oslo.

This does not necessarily mean the end of the two-state solution, but it does mean that a two-state solution will not come about within a negotiated settlement.

Not any time soon, that much is certain.


  1. Enter the J Street knobs who are now urging the US to INCLUDE the genocidal Hamas in negotiations.

    Brain virus I'm guessing. Surely they aren't that stupid in general. Oh wait. It's J Street. Never mind.

    1. It would be as if W.E.B. Dubois demanded that the Klan have an editorial say in The Crisis.

      The pure stupidity is shocking.

  2. And of course the EU can't wait for Hamas to bring their genocidal Jew hate on board.

    "The European Union welcomed Thursday the unity accord between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas but said the priority remains peace talks with Israel.
    “The EU’s top priority is that the current talks continue beyond April 29,” said a spokesman for EU foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton, referring to the deadline for a US-led effort to broker a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal.
    “The EU has consistently called for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, spokesman Michael Mann said in a statement.
    Such an understanding was “an important element for the unity of a future Palestinian state and for reaching a two-state solution [with Israel],” Mann added."

    Just to keep those Jews on their toes I suppose. Like in the good old days.

  3. Actually it wouldn't have been a terrible idea. Why? There's no 'unity government'. Never will be. Israel should have told them "Ok you hillbillies, you decide who represents you at the next round of talks, and we'll be over here waiting for whichever of you gore dappled savages survives."

  4. Abbas is the modern Bard. "How do I miss an opportunity? Let me count the ways."

  5. Try again!!

    The option of a two-State solution has long gone, though it was never on the cards. That's been obvious since Partition.

    Abbas is clutching at straws, so is making a pact with the devil. If this lasts, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be the start of a third intifada.

    Not sure if I prefer Naftali Bennett's plan or go along with full annexation as per the Levy Plan. Though I think I lean to the latter.

    Mike you like Arlene Kushner. She's part of the committee on this. I have to tell you it is rapidly gaining momentum.

  6. Glick nails it

    "Two weeks ago, Abbas signed on to 15 international agreements that among other things require the PA to respect human rights and punish war criminals.

    And this week, he signed a unity deal with two genocidal terror groups all of whose leaders are war criminals. Every leader of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the two parties that signed the deal with the PLO, are war criminals. Under the Geneva Conventions, which Abbas signed onto just a couple of weeks ago, he is required to put them on trial, for their war crimes.

    Here it is worth noting that under the Geneva Conventions, every single rocket launch from Gaza into Israeli territory is a separate war crime.

    Abbas was only able to sign the Geneva Conventions on the one hand, and the unity deal with terrorist war criminals on the other, because he is utterly convinced that neither the US nor the European Union will hold him accountable for his actions. He is completely certain that neither the Americans nor the Europeans are serious about their professed commitments to upholding international law....."

    Abbas has the Western powers' number. Push never comes to shove.

    1. So, do you guys think that we are actually at a turning point wherein people like Caroline and Martin come to the forefront of the discussion?

      The conservative, pro-Israel single-state solution?

      I think that this is going to be a tough sell and I do not believe that it is up to diaspora Jews to sell it.

      This is up to the Israeli government and the Israeli people, but definitely not up to us.

      I am not convinced that annexing Judea and Samaria is wise.

      Some annexation of the major Jewish towns in areas C and, perhaps, B, but does Israel really want to take responsibility for 1.5 million Arabs who generally tend to be hostile, if not violent, toward Jews?

      I have not read Glick's book, yet - although I threaten to do so! - but I am not convinced of the argument for how our Arab neighbors can be accommodated in a democratic fashion within a single-state solution, if Israel wishes to remain democratic and Jewish.

      That's the key question, obviously.

    2. Agree with all you said, Mike.

      I do not live in Israel, so my opinion is ultimately only worth as much as you're paying to read it (well, leave internet connection costs aside for now, wiseacres). I fully supported one last round of 'negotiations,' knowing full well that nothing positive was likely to come from it. Because I figured, "what could it hurt to talk?" Well, in the end it looks like it did hurt, by giving Europe yet another chance to screw with the Jews, and by giving the 'Palestinians' a few more batches of disgusting terrorist 'heroes' to name internationally welfare-funded things after.

      It should now be clear to anyone that there will never be a 'negotiated settlement,' in any of our lifetimes, so the best option left is unilateral declaration of final borders. Taking what Israel needs, keeping all of Jerusalem, and leaving the remainder to whatever its inhabitants choose to make of it.

      Put me on record as opposing any more 'talks.' They're now worse than useless, since freeing numerous batches of vicious murderers is now apparently an ongoing requirement during same.

      That's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. And I fully believe what I think we both favor is the best course. And will lead to a positive outcome for all, although admittedly the only side I care about anymore is Israel.