Rice Thinks Land Concessions Will Pacify Palestinians

[walford]

Israel's Auschwitz borders (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=42805)

Condoleezza Rice may know a lot about the old Soviet Union, but she sure doesn't know squat about the Middle East.

The secretary of state recently explained how it is necessary for Israel to give up more land to help fashion a viable, contiguous Palestinian state – from Gaza through Judea and Samaria.

Perhaps if you don't understand the geography, this might seem like a perfectly reasonable demand. After all, how can we expect the new Palestinian state to function normally if its people are divided by artificial barriers?

What I trust Rice does not understand – in fact, what I hope she simply fails to comprehend – is that Israel has no more land to give. Israel has no moral obligation to give any land. Israel will be jeopardizing its own security in doing so.

Let me make this crystal clear. Look at a map of the Middle East. After glancing at it for a few minutes, can anyone honestly tell me they believe the problems of violence and terrorism there have to do with the fact that Israel has too much land?

This is apparently what we are to believe.

There's lots of land in the Middle East. Most of it is populated sparsely by Arabic-speaking people, culturally, linguistically, religiously and ethnically at one with the so-called "Palestinians," a people who have never had a country of their own in the history of the world. Why then is it Israel's obligation to carve itself up to create this Palestinian state?

The tiny sliver of land that represents the current state of Israel is only about one-tenth the size of the original United Nations mandate that created the Jewish state in 1947.

Now, I'm not a Jew. I'm a Christian Arab-American journalist who believes in freedom first, peace second. And I've got to tell you that the demands on Israel right now are demands for the nation to commit political, military and cultural suicide.

Do you know what the new borders of Israel would be under the plans being drawn up now for a "viable, contiguous Palestine"? I call them Auschwitz borders. I don't know why the Jews don't see it.

They are willingly helping to build a national concentration camp of half the world's Jewry surrounded by hostile maniacs who want to eradicate them. Israel's new borders under a Rice plan will be indefensible. Creating a new Palestinian state with contiguous borders and relying on Israel to come up with all the necessary real estate requires cutting Israel in half from north to south.

It might create a "viable" Palestinian state, but it will destroy the viability of Israel.

If Adolf Hitler had been a little smarter, he would have helped recreate a Jewish state in the Middle East and squeezed it the way the Arabs, the Europeans and now the United States are squeezing Israel. Hitler could never have dreamed of a more expedient "final solution."

Now I am not going to suggest that Rice or the Bush administration are intentionally trying to destroy Israel or the Jews. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are ill-informed, that they are making profoundly bad decisions based on bad data and bad analysis.

But I will make no such assumptions about the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states that back it. They are not promoting a Palestinian state because they believe in freedom and self-determination for the Arab people who live there. Instead, they are doing so to create a permanent staging ground from which they will continue their war of attrition against the Jewish infidels who have the audacity to live in what they consider to be Dar al-Islam.

It's that simple. I wish Rice and Bush and even the Israeli government could see it.

It is a national disgrace that the U.S. government is spending $350 million more to subsidize the Palestinian Authority, which holds that no Jews are permitted to live within its territory or future nation. It is a national disgrace that the U.S. government would join with the rest of the anti-Semitic world to force Israel to abandon its own security needs and its own Jewish communities on historically Jewish lands. And it is a national disgrace that the U.S. government, while supposedly fighting a global war against Islamist terrorism, is appeasing them in the Arab-Israeli conflict.EDIT: My criticism of this piece lies in the fact that there are no quotes from Dr. Rice that give any indication of her rationale on land concessions -- there may be some conditions that are not being explored. I certainly concur that land will not purchase peace under any circumstance.

Insofar as Farah's assertion that he favors freedom first and peace second, I have repeatedly said that freedom is the key toward peace -- and prosperity.

[BarkingSquirrel]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

[Ratman]

If one argues that it is impossible for a Palestinian state to co-exist with Israel, then what to do with the current mess? What happens to the occupied territories? Do Palestinians remain stateless or at best second class citizens?

[username]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

It was the result of alot of negotiating. What was offered to palestine was not considered acceptable by the palestinans standards, they felt that they were entitled to more land. It's a tricky situation, will post some more info on it later.

[S'13]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

What was offered to palestine was not considered acceptable by the palestinans standards, they felt that they were entitled to more land.

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".

[username]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

What was offered to palestine was not considered acceptable by the palestinans standards, they felt that they were entitled to more land.

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".

Refugee's being given the right to go back to they're(edit: their) land straight away. I would say thats offering land.

[Ratman]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

What was offered to palestine was not considered acceptable by the palestinans standards, they felt that they were entitled to more land.

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".

Another sticking point was the right to the most important 3 or 5% of the land, which wasn't on the table - that land over aquafiers.

[S'13]

Didn't Sharon already try to give them land only to be turned down? I'm not sure about that though, so please correct if wrong.

What was offered to palestine was not considered acceptable by the palestinans standards, they felt that they were entitled to more land.

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".

Refugee's being given the right to go back to they're(edit: their) land straight away. I would say thats offering land.

Eh, I wouldn't say so since the debate is over the matter of letting refugees and their families move to their places of origin (including places that are in Israel proper, such as Jaffa and Haifa for example), this would mean that a lot of the "returning" Arabs would have to become Israeli citizens.
From a demographic point of view this would be very bad for Israel.

Anyway, the question of the "right of return" has nothing to with giving land to the future Palestinian state but with allowing Arabs to move into Israel's borders.

[walford]

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".And what is this right of return? Does it not include anyone who is related to those who left since 1947 -- that is a majority of these Arabs who are to be brought in were not born there/never been there? In other words the purpose is to demographically swamp Israel with people who desire to destroy the Jewish State.

Insofar as their statelessness is concerned, that was self-inflicted. The other Arabs denied them citizenship, the right to own property, herded them into squalid refugee camps so that their suffering could be flogged for political gain [threatening them with death for leaving] etc.

The author's point is twofold: There has never been a Palestinian state, so they are being told that they are denied something that never existed. Further, there is plenty of territory in the Middle East to live in an Arab Muslim society. There is only one place in the world to live in a Jewish society and they are being asked to give more territory to people who continue to target their civilians on a weekly basis.

[FaDeR_SP]

I agree

[S'13]

Actually the negotiations collapsed over the question of the "right of return".And what is this right of return? Does it not include anyone who is related to those who left since 1947 -- that is a majority of these Arabs who are to be brought in were not born there/never been there? In other words the purpose is to demographically swamp Israel with people who desire to destroy the Jewish State.


No argument there.
Notice that I use quotation marks when I write this word... ;)