Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Dumb and Dumber: Mitchell's Same Old Peace Plan

Palestine and Israel
by Nadene Goldfoot
The United States and Europe assume that the Palestinians want peace. Could they possibly be wrong?
The Palestinians were offered their own state in 1948 when Israel was created. They rejected the idea and immediately attacked Israel with five Arab states. Surely they were carrying out the dictive to kill Jews and certainly not to reside next to them. After 60 years of attacking Israel, things have not changed. Their charter has not changed. Their behavior has not changed, except to get worse. They have elected Hamas, under the pressure of the United States to hold elections. Hamas has nothing in its charter to have a state or to live peacefully next to Israel. That tells us a lot about what its people desire.

Fatah is assumed to behave better, only they seem to differ from Hamas only in that they are more secretive in their resistance to Israel. Fatah boasts that their terror cells in Gaza also fired upon Israel just as Hamas fired missiles against Israel. Fatah has terror cells called Aksa Martyrs. They claim that during Operation Cast Lead, their terrorists fired 137 rockets and mortar shells at Israel. This means that Israel was fired on by both groups. Abbas claims that his people did so because they are living under Hamas rule, but from 2000 to June 2007, when Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza, most of the weapons smugglings operations in Gaza were done by Fatah, who did the most firing at Israel. Most suicide bombers from Judea and Samaria were members of Fatah. It isn't the moderate group that they claim to be, unless they call this action moderate.

There are those that lay the blame on Israel constantly saying if only this or that was done, they would be nice people. They blame Israel for not being supportive of Arafat and now Abbas! They were the leaders trying to do Israel in and were always attacking, and we should have been more supportive? Perhaps Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice think that America should have been more supportive of Hitler, then. Shouldn't we now support people who want to kill us? What kind of convoluted thinking is this?

1. They continue: If only Israel had kicked out the Jews of Gaza earlier. Israel removed all the Jews in Gaza and handed the ruins of their villages and farms to Fatah in September 2005.
2. If only Israel had removed its roadblocks and expelled Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria;
3. If only Israel had prevented all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines; Since 2000 Israel has stopped Jewish building in Judea and Samaria.
4. Only Israel is asked or told to give, give, give up land to the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not told to do anything in regards to Israel, like be good neighbors. There are no expectations for them.

Then Arafat and now Abbas would have been more popular and would stop their terrorist forces.
These people receive a salary from the PA which is funded by the US and Israel. So Israel is forced to fund the very people who want to see their total destruction by the forces that be.

Mitchell has been selected again by the Democrats. Again, he'll go for a plan first created by Tom Friedman, then copied by Saudi Arabia, who was praised by Obama by being so brave, the PLO's peace plan. Mitchell told Arafat that the conditions were that he had to make 100% effort to prevent terror. That was funny because it was he who called the shots of terror. Clinton's administration used the old nod-nod-wink-wink attitude of Palestinian terrorism since 1994. They allowed things to happen. Mitchell said that Israel and the Palestinians were equally to blame for the terror of the Palestinians against Israel. I guess that's like blaming a girl for being raped. (If only she had dressed like a boy). Well, today she might not have been safe at that. This meant that Arafat wasn't responsible for anything in Clinton's eyes. He could say that their attacks didn't come from him, that he was doing his 100% good old try at resisting.

I must say that Hillary Clinton has been much more supportive of Israel, and also feels that they have a right to respond when attacked. That is 100% improvement from her husband's attitude. I hope she has some knowledge that she could share with Mitchell and help him to become more understanding or caring about Israel's future.

By the time Bush got in, he didn't go along with Mitchell's plan or Mitchell. After all, he was a Republican and had to get some different players on his team. The scene had shifted to finding Israeli children's body parts on the walls of bombed pizzerias and bar mitzva parties that had to be scraped off in order to bury them. Bush didn't cry "moral equivalence" at this point. Even he could see that Israel was enduring a lot of attacking and was unlike the Palestinians. However, his plan copied the Clinton Plan, formed the Tenet Plan, the Road Map Plan and then the Annapolis Plan, so there wasn't that much difference.

Like the others, Obama sets his table with Palestine's creation as the centerpiece. Everyone is bound and determined to create this 2nd state made up of murderous hearts ready to kill Israelis. How lucky we are! They feel that the only other solution is to absorb Palestinians into Israel, which is an even worse idea.
I say that some of the other 22 Arab states should absorb them, such as Saudi Arabia. They are so helpful and so in need of people. They have a large body of land and very little constituents.

Wouldn't they like these Palestinians living next to them?

Israel has been attacked over and over again by 5 nations at one time, and Israel has won despite the odds. Israel has gone along with having a Palestinian state only to be attacked. The Palestinian people have done nothing to show that they would be good neighbors. They have done just the opposite. It's like having an open mental institution next door with no one controlling the inmates who are killers.

Now the heads of state, Marshall as representative, expect Israel to give again as if we haven't already done so and it never gains us any peace. After doing the same thing over and over and over and over, one would think that this behavior is not getting us anywhere. Repeating an action that gets you nowhere is crazy. I'm not for giving land for peace anymore. How about doing what the USA has done. If you attack us, we take your land. For every bomb shot into Israel, we take 25 KM of land. At that rate, we might take back all of Gaza.

Many Arab states attacked Israel including all the Palestinians. They lost the attack. The land is legitimately part of Israel. Israel does not have to give up land but has done so in the name of peace. Peace has not come. Israel being attacked and not responding is now a thing of the past. Israelis have had enough!
Mitchell made the statement at Tel Aviv U. last month that "the US and Israel must cling to the delusion that Palestinian statehood will bring about a new utopia, for the alternative is unacceptable and should be unthinkable." This indeed is a delusion that should be dropped for sanity's purposes. We must not delude ourselves, but look at the picture sanely. Here is a people who do not want their own state and who probably could not manage it at all given the free reign to do so. They are killers and not lovers of anything, including their own children. They think dying is terrific.

Mitchell is making the same old pitch with nothing new. He's not as creative or fair as Obama makes out to be. When Obama steps up to the plate, G-d help him to be understanding and fair with Israel. Haven't we gone through enough with such dreamers?

Update: 1/30/09 Former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces and now member of the Likud party, Moshe Yaalon said: "From the dawn of Zionism until this day, the source of all terrorist attacks has been the refusal of the Arab world to recognize Israel's existence. Until this changes, we will remain the target of violent terrorist activity. The '67 borders are not a solution to rocket attacks, suicide bombs or more conventional forms of warfare. The two-state solution has failed and to my mind is now irrelevant. Even before the [war with] Hamas, a two-state solution was a mistaken fantasy—now it's even more irrelevant."

Resource: The Jerusalem Post, Jan 23, 2009 by Caroline Glick "History's Tragic Farce".
Post a Comment