| The Pretense of Middle-East Peace Roy J. Tanner Orlando, FL 13/02/02 Pretending will not make it so. With no basis in historical precedent (according to corroborating news sources at ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc.), calls for re-establishing a Palestinian state only inculcate a myth. Aside from the fact that there is no record of a "Palestinian" people (only Arabs) living around this area prior to 1900, —settlement credit must instead be given to a returning remnant of Jews that made the desert "bloom" again (with God's blessing). The ensuing job creation in-turn attracted the surrounding nomadic people to inhabit this previously desolate area of real estate. Yet this fallacy of protecting the rights of an ancient “Palestinian people” is the basis for attempting to negotiate a peace settlement between these historically estranged bedfellows. Frankly, more talk about this “peace process” is ludicrous. If the PA were interested in a “land for peace” deal, they would have jumped at the Clinton/Barak proposals. Sadly, it appears the PA has never been anything other than a "forward operating base" for the enemies of Israel. What's more, the PA's current “river to sea” assault mode-of-operation appears identical to Hizballah’s "Lebanon model," that exhausted the IDF's willpower through stepped-up, orchestrated terrorism and a general war of attrition. Apparently, the PA has never intended to be a state within a state, but rather a state instead of...Israel. If so, why is the Islamic claim to the city of its “3rd most holy site” (Jerusalem) being considered ahead of the Judeo-Christian right to its primary holy land? In light of Arafat's current solicitation of heavy ordnance and suicide martyrs (instead of restraint), who knows what it will take to head-off another PA bloodbath and Arab debacle? Considering the age-old animosity between the legitimate sons of Abraham and the offspring of Hagar, there’s little prospect of a negotiated settlement over this land. By playing “king for a day,” an enforced peace could be realized by irradiating a northern demilitarized zone (between Lebanon, Syria and Israel), walling-off Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") and moving the entire Gaza population behind this protected area. Afterwards, a policy of "mutually assured destruction" (using Israel’s nuclear deterrent) could then be articulated to the surrounding hostile regimes and illegitimate monarchies, to keep an interim peace viable. This is obviously a worst-case scenario though. While endorsement for the continued support of our democratic ally is this area would seem to be self-evident to all but the most self-deluded enemies of the Jewish people, I can't understand why this assessment (other than my advice as king) isn't given more print, or discussion in our circles of influence. Maybe Israel’s detractors in the US would do well to remember the Jewish contributions to America since its’ founding, or the unequivocal support sanctioned by every US administration since Truman (during the reformation of Israel). To mute these points in favor of the vain hope of dealing with Arafat and his “pretentious” peace process, not only lends credibility to Muslim propagandists, but puts the US in the line-of-fire from the destitute, lunatic fringe who believes their nonsense. Friends of Israel, now more than ever, we need to speak-up! Roy J. Tanner Orlando, FL for more information see The Palestinians |
The Case Agianst Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz 
Coming from England and particularly from the BBC, MUST BE SEEN VIDEO! ANOTHER MUST SEE VIDEO |