Why The Arab/Israeli Conflict Remains Intractable





Dr. Grobman, a Hebrew University-trained historian, is the author of The Palestinian Right To Israel (Balfour Books, 2010). He is the president of Balfour Trust, an educational outreach to help Christians understand the Jewish roots of their faith, Zionism and the State of Israel.

There have been many attempts to understand why the Arab/Israel conflict remains unresolved.  Among the reasons advanced for this impasse are:  years of suspicion, fear, feelings of injustice and stereotyping, all of which have created a psychological barrier between Israelis and Arabs.  Negative perceptions have reduced incentives to accept peace proposals, prejudice the viability of these proposals and preclude feelings of empathy.

On the most personal level, there are differences in Arab and Jewish lifestyles.  Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, laments the gulf dividing Arabs and Jews, even where they live together as neighbors.  They patronage the same stores, exchange information on common neighborhood issues, drink coffee in the afternoon, and watch their children growing up on opposite sides of the fence. Yet they do not share common holidays, days of rest, or leisure activities.

Holidays are especially alienating.  Benvenisti would not invite his neighbors to sit in his sukkah (booths used during the Feast of Tabernacles) lest they be offended when he recites the prayer over the wine.  Similarly, when one of his neighbor’s children returned from the hajj, the annual religious pilgrimage to Mecca, his family would not be invited to celebrate to save them embarrassment for not knowing how to behave.

Estrangement is even more pronounced the moment visible symbols are involved.  When Benvenisti displays the flag on Israeli Independence Day, he knows his neighbors will be upset.  On Yom Kippur, work ceases throughout the country.  During the month of Ramadan, Arabs rise at 3:00 am when blind man in his neighborhood, who is escorted by a drummer, wakes up the pious to prepare the meal before the fast.

Security issues add another layer of distance.  Every one of his Arab neighbors’ homes has been searched at least once during the fourteen years the Benvenistis have lived there.  Every single male over the age of eighteen has been detained by the security forces during the same period.  “We are simultaneously enemies and neighbors,” he concludes.

The many wars, endless clashes and threats of total annihilation have left memories of “hatred, paranoia, brutality, dehumanization, and tribalism.”  Even as Israel becomes more powerful, many Israelis still feel “vulnerable and weak.”  The Holocaust continues to be a “national trauma.”  Fear remains an overwhelming emotion.

Sari Nusseibeh, scion of one Jerusalem’s most prominent Muslim Arab families, president of Al Quds University in Jerusalem, and a former PLO representative in the city, posits that the “inability to imagine the lives of the ‘other,’ is main reason why the conflict persists.  Everyone is so absorbed in their own adversity they are unaware of each other’s experiences and even antagonistic to them.”

The late Edward Said, a pro-Palestinian activist and a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, underlined the fundamental reason why when he spoke of Palestinians becoming the victims of Zionism, of the Zionists being responsible for the destruction of their society, the loss of their land, and the painful exile they are forced to endure.

He accused the Zionists of being a “tool of imperialism” who usurped their land, established settler colonies and a sovereign state whose only means of preservation is by aggression and expansion.  Some Arabs believe that Israel is by nature an expansionist nation, and will continue to take more land at Arab expense.9 

Seizing Arab land cannot be tolerated.  Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s leading experts on Islam, explains that once a territory has become part of Islam‘s domain, it can never be relinquished or surrendered to anyone.  No land is more significant than Arabia and Iraq. And of the two, Arabia is clearly the most important.

The sacredness of Muslim land led to the eviction of Jews and Christians from their homes and property.  In 641, twenty years after Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina, Caliph Umar decreed that Jews and Christians be expelled from Arabia in accordance with the Prophet’s deathbed pronouncement:  “Let there not be two religions in Arabia.”  This meant Jews of the oasis of Khybar in the north and Christians of Najran in the south were to be banished even though both groups had very deep roots in the region and differed from their Muslim neighbors only in their religion.

The Jews were relocated to Syria and Palestine and the Christians to Iraq.  Compared to the expulsions Jews experienced in Europe, this was more limited.  Jews were not forced out immediately.  They left gradually, but the decision to expel them was irrevocable.  From then on, non-Muslims were forbidden to walk on this sacred soil, which became a major transgression.  Elsewhere in Arabia, non-Muslims could enter as temporary visitors, but could not become residents or practice their religion.

Arabs call Israeli Independence Day, the Nakba (Catastrophe), and regard it as a day of mourning.  Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian advocate, regards the establishment of the Jewish state was as an “unimaginable aberration.”  Other Arab leaders portray Zionism as “a disaster” and a “sword …at the necks of the Palestinian people.”

What Benvenisti, Nusseibeh and others fail to mention is that the fundamental objective of the militant and violent Arabs is to destroy Western culture and civilization and replace it with their own “civilization of dhimmitude,” where non-Muslims will be forced to become a “protected” minority subordinating themselves to restrictive and degrading Islamic law to avoid death or enslavement.  For thirteen hundred years, this jihad political force has subjugated and even eliminated major areas of Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious civilizations in Europe, Asia and Africa.  Non-Muslims either converted, disappeared or were rendered incapable of further development.

The goal of conquering the West is avowed in the introduction to The Charter of Allah: The Platform of Hamas:  “We say to this West, which does not act reasonably, and does not learn its lessons:  By Allah, you will be defeated.  You will be defeated in Palestine, and your defeat there has already begun.  True, it is Israel that is being defeated there, but when Israel is defeated, its path is defeated, those who call to support it are defeated, and the cowards who hide behind it and support it are defeated.  Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or supports it.”

That is why the Israeli and American war on terrorism in the twenty-first century is one and the same.  Hamas prime minister Isma`il Haniya confirmed this when he said “…the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.”  The delusion that they are separate conflicts has conferred an element of legitimacy on the vicious acts of terrorism in Israel.

The attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001 were the latest manifestation of the Islamic jihad to establish universal world domination.  This goal can be realized through demographic growth and conversion of the local population.  Large numbers of teachers and religious leaders will be mobilized to teach Islam in every language and dialect.  Should peaceful methods prove inadequate, physical force can be used.

Even if Hamas agreed to a hunda (truce) with Israel, this would only be a strategic tactic that would not signal an end to the struggle or a change in objectives.  Abbas al-Sayyid, (the political leader of Hamas in Tulkarm and the convicted Izz-ad-Din al- Qassam Brigades commander of Hamas’s military wing), who was the architect of the bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya on March 27, 2002 in which thirty people were killed and 140 injured, made this clear.  Hamas, he said, is prepared for a truce for an extensive period of time, but for religious reasons could not allow Israel to occupy Islamic lands.  If Abbas does not succeed in obtaining the land that is “rightfully mine” then perhaps his “son or grandson will.”

What will happen to the people who allegedly stole Arab lands?  Mahmoud Darwish, a very popular poet of the Palestinian resistance, provided the answer in a powerful poem “Bitaqit Hawia,” (Identity Card) written in 1964.  Although professing not to “hate people,” Darwish warned,

The usurper’s flesh will be my food.
Beware, Beware,
Of my hunger
And my anger!

Edward Said noted:

The curious power of this little poem is that when it first appeared in the late sixties, it did not represent as much as embody the Palestinian whose political identity in the world had been pretty much reduced to a name on an identity card.

Is there any Zionist poetry or statement that describes the Palestinians in comparable ways?  And if any does exist, who could claim that it is the “embodiment of the Israelis,” that it represents the view of the Jewish people?

For many Arabs, the conflict with Zionism is a religious war against the Jewish people.  Since the Jews are not going to leave their homeland voluntarily, the solution is clear, according toAbdallah Jarbu', Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments:  "May He annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience.  I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes that they are human beings.  They are not human beings. They are not people.  They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values."


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Elliott Aron Green - 6/12/2010

Al-Quds is simply an Arabic mispronunciation of the Hebrew term HaQodesh. The Arabs are the usurpers who dispossessed and overwhelmed pre-Arab conquest populations in many countries, from Spain to Persia. Learn history, jjb.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/11/2010

Prof
I stand corrected and apologize to the readership of HNN.
That was Elliott not you but you two seem to be so much in tandem that my mistake is, I hope, understandable and forgivable by the readership to whom I apologize once more!


art eckstein - 6/10/2010

I didn't talk about this. You mean someone else. Another example of your inexactness.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/10/2010

Prof
Do you still stand by your assertion that : " Umar or his source does is to attribute all of the state land to "Arab owned" "
Or will you retract it and apologize???


art eckstein - 6/10/2010

If I wrote that one had to understand that the British conquered India because of the declining character of Indian society, and that's just the way of the world, and then dared also to claim simultaneously that I wasn't making a justifying the conquest, people would laugh at such nonsense and lack of self-awareness.

Your own intensely self-regarding ideology has boxed you into a ridiculous and immoral position, Omar.


Peter Kovachev - 6/10/2010

ROFLMAO!

This one's your best so far for 2010, Omar. I know you can best it, though.


james joseph butler - 6/9/2010

Hello Elliot,
This all seems far away because it is as I watch the rain fall. Do you live in Al Quds? I live in Maryland. A land taken from the natives a half century ago. Why can't you face the same truth that so many of your leaders have acknowledged, be it Gen.Dayan, Gen. Gur, Weitzmann, Ben-Gurion, Herzel, or the goy Balfour who knew that "Zionism is of greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." 1919?

This is really simple racist imperialist stuff. I know Jews are Yahweh's gift and brillant victims, and that's not too be glib just true. But Elliot you and the rest of the world sleep easier when Palestinians become just as human as Jews.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

A totally irrelevant point!
Is it or is it not a historical fact that some cultures do, and some actually did, "naturally decline" and fade away with or without the assistance of an external factor?


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

Prof

That was no justification but rather a very short delineation of how and why things happened the way they did some 15 + centuries ago.
You should be able to see and tell the difference between justification and just plain recounting of how things happened, whether you like that or NOT!
Interestingly I note that when you raise a certain point and when that point is refuted you hurry to your favourite activity of irrelevant, false and unsubstantiated pseudo psycho -socio analysis .
If that serves to decompress you that is OK by me!


art eckstein - 6/9/2010

There you go: "NATURAL DECLINE" of non-Muslim cultures under Muslim rule.

And who, Omar, are you accusing of being imperialists and colonizers??


art eckstein - 6/9/2010

Nice to see you justifying the Muslim conquest again, Omar. If you think conversion was voluntary, ask the Copts in Egypt right now.

Muslims such as Omar are told that they have the highest level of spiritual life, and yet in the Arab world they see that they live lives of squalor and corruption in the planet's most degenerate and failed states. So they blame anyone but themselves-they say that they must have been betrayed, or are victims of a Jewish (or Western conspiracy). They can't look in the mirror. It's against their honor. It's always somebody else's fault.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

That is a facile rejoinder that definitely fails to see, or deliberately overlooks, the difference between :
-a militarily imposed culture in an outright conquer and annihilate the enemy operation ; as for the USA and its native Indians .
and
-a voluntarily, ie non inforced , adopted culture in a gradual process of renunciation, or natural decline, of the old and acceptance and assimilation in the new more vigorous ; as for the Arabization of the Levant!


Elliott Aron Green - 6/9/2010

The whole region was then gradually Arabized in the sense that it voluntarily adopted, with local variations of course, Arab culture that came to dominate then replace all other cultures in the same geographic domain.

Of course, Omar, it was all so "voluntary". Yes, it had nothing to do with imperialism, conquest, oppression of the native peoples, forced payment of tribute --jizya-- or regular humiliation of non-Muslims and so on.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

Prof
Difficult as it is for you to accept and digest it the undeniable historical facts of the matter are:
The Middle East is presently overwhelmingly Arab and/or Moslem in all its indigenous non alien constituents is the outcome of the prevalence of Arab culture, as in its one and only lingua franca: Arabic, and NOT a result of earlier Arab military conquests as you claim.

Arab, as in from Arabia, presence and cultural influence in Greater Syria and Iraq preceded Arab military conquest but was certainly furthered with Arab rule later ( You should know that by now Prof….that is a ,b and c !)
The whole region was then gradually Arabized in the sense that it voluntarily adopted, with local variations of course, Arab culture that came to dominate then replace all other cultures in the same geographic domain.

That that was also a non military output is due to two outstanding factors:
1-the gradual voluntary and peaceful, ie non forced, fading out of local cultures and the adoption of Arabic first as the language of Quran then as an everyday language then as the one and only language and culture/
AND
2-( this one is certainly harder for you to digest) the total ABSENCE of any RACIAL or ETHNIC constituent in the developing nationalist all enveloping , culture based, Arabism that came to include all: both Arabs from Arabia and Arabized Arabs
(I propose you read Philip Hitti for your further education, that will not hurt you!)
Military conquest on its own cannot achieve cultural assimilation except, of course, in the case of genocide i.e. . the practically total physical extermination of the indigenous populations as for the native Indians and the Anglo Saxon conquest that bred the USA ; in which case practically nobody was left to assimilate or be assimilated with and the culture of the conqueror prevails, by DEFAULT not by choice.

Military conquests if met by a vivacious ,developing and non declining culture , as was both the Moslem and British conquest of India met , leads only to political domination not to cultural assimilation and prevalence and native culture(s) tend to survive and flourish .
The region was later dominated by several non Arab, in either sense of the word, armies and rulers for long durations but none of that affected the predominance of Arab culture which still prevails; as, hopefully, you must know!

That should tell you something if you care to listen and comprehend!


art eckstein - 6/9/2010

Omar, the only reason that this region is "Arab land" is because of military conquest by Arabs--now you disdain this as a rationale if it is done by others. You see Muslim control, rather, as a natural situation, you "naturalize" it, as long as it's Muslims doing the conquering, and that land becomes sacred to Islam.

In addition, the proto-Israelis were attacked, and they won. For months they were losing, but eventually they won. That had territorial consequences. If they hadn't been attacked, then pre-1967 Israel would have been much smaller than it is now.

Omar, your problem is that you can't accept historical responsibility for your own actions. It's always someone else's fault.

Indeed, in four years here at HNN you've never admitted to a single fault on the Arab/Muslim side.

The same cannot be said of your interlocutors, who have criticized actions of Israel.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

State land , by definition, belong to the "state" which, also by definition, to be ligitimate must be part of and represent the INDIGENOUS people of the land and NOT alien newcomers and incomers.
However the specific point you make about the table is false and consciously misleading.
According to that table there is :
- % Arab owned
- % Jewish owned
- % Public and other
Which means that the point you make " Umar or his source does is to attribute all of the state land to "Arab owned" lands. " is plainly a deliberate falsification of something still there for all to see.


Elliott Aron Green - 6/9/2010

Well, our pain is sincere. Thanx. That's a start.

The usurpation of Jewish-owned land by Arabs in the Middle Ages shows that the colonialist record is on the Arab side. Likewise, the historic, traditional Arab oppression of Jews in the country as dhimmis. The Arabs show no sign of acknowledging their own historical wrongs against Jews, even those wrongs committed in the 20th century [such as Holocaust collaboration by the Arab leadership, most notably, Haj Amin el-Husseini].

AS to a "palestinian narrative." The Muslim Arabs in the country did not traditionally call themselves "palestinians" or call the country "palestine" or "filastin". They traditionally saw the land as an indistinct part of bilad ash-Sham, Syria, as Arab expert witnesses testified to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in 1946. They did not see themselves as a "palestinian people" before the mid-1960s. So the "palestinian narrative" is perforce a 20th century invention.

However, the Quran itself recognizes the Jewish/Zionist narrative, as in Sura 5:12 [covenant with the Sons of Israel], 5:20-22 [assignment of the Holy Land to the Jews], 17:104 [the Jewish return to the Land], etc. All the Arabs need do is acknowledge what their own Quran relates. If they can't do that, then it seems that they are willingly falsifying.


Elliott Aron Green - 6/9/2010

`Umar or his source fails to mention that in many districts of the country most of land was state land, which had been of three kinds during the Ottoman period: jiftlik, mahlul, & muwat. What `Umar or his source does is to attribute all of the state land to "Arab owned" lands. This is false and unacceptable. By rights, according to the mandate granted and assigned to the UK to administer the Jewish National Home, state lands should have been placed at the disposal of the organized Jewish community for "close settlement of Jews on the land," as instructed by Article 6 of the Mandate. The British violated the terms of the Mandate which is a separate. Omar or his source are falsifying by labeling the state lands as "Arab owned."


omar ibrahim baker - 6/9/2010

Unwilling, or simply genetically unable, to accept facts supported by unassailable figures provided by neutral , uninvolved sources, the Prof, Eckstein no less, goes on reiterating what all the world that bothered to check, knows to be false , untrue and actually made up.

His most recent demarche in that domain is his assertion that :” Every piece of land that came into Jewish hands before 1947 was bought from willing Arab sellers …“ implying therein that Jews were in legal possession of the lands they invaded then controlled in 1948.
BUT he , deliberately and consciously , fails to add that those lands legitimately owned by Jews never exceeded 7% (seven percent) of the total area of Palestine versus the 72% (+/-) “Israel” came to dominate post 1948 conquest.
More specifically official British records indicate that :
Land ownership
\And that :
Land ownership of Palestine by district as of 1945
District % Arab owned % Jewish owned % Public and other
Acre 87% 3% 10%
Beersheba 15% <1% 85%
Beisan 44% 34% 22%
Gaza 75% 4% 21%
Haifa 42% 35% 23%
Hebron 96% <1% 4%
Jaffa 46% 39% 14%
Jenin 84% <1% 16%
Nazareth 52% 28% 20%
Ramallah 99% <1% 1%
Ramle 77% 14% 9%
Safad 68% 18% 14%
Tiberias 51% 38% 11%
Tulkarm 78% 17% 5%
Data from the
Land Ownership of Palestine



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bless_sins/Palestine#Land_Ownership_by_district )

Detailed land ownership figures above clearly show that Jewish legit imitate land ownership of Palestine was less than 1/One ( Jewish) to more than 6/Six (Arab).
However the Prof is aware that outright falsification no longer stands as it used to so he hurries to provide another
“Excuse/justification” for the Jewish land grab:
“The rest of pre-1967 Israel was the result of a victory the proto-Israelis won in a war in which the proto-Israelis were the ones attacked, and which for months it looked like they were losing. “ by which he aspires to clinch Israel’s “legitimate” ownership of lands under its control.

Here once again the Professor stumbles and fails to convince anybody but the diehard Zionist in that :
A-winning a war does NOT delegitimize standing legitimate land ownership and legitimize victor’s take over of land ( the USA did not come to own Japan !)
But here typically the Jews/Zionist had a trick up their sleeve: disallow the return of people displaced during war activities and their lands become unclaimed or “absentee “ owned and take possession thereof.
THIS is compounding one illegitimate act by another .
Be that as it may and for the long run in the historical/cultural significance of this conflict the inevitable “morality” IS:
“ THAT which was lost by war can only be regained by war”


james joseph butler - 6/8/2010

The same old...If one assumes that Dr. Grobman is interested in peace between Palestinians and Israelis, that he actually wants such a thing to pass, why then, does he paint such a one sided picture. Yeesh enough already with the seventh century, Arab or Jew.

The point is both sides need to recognize the validity of the other and neither Israel nor America has internalized the Palestinian side of the narrative. And the scary thing is I'm afraid neither will until there is even more carnage. I don't particularly feel reciting the obvious regarding the paltry 20, 22%, of the Sykes Picot era Palestine that the present day Israeli government continues to cut slivers from that most Palestinians could deal with if they were granted true equality and respect. Unless there is a South African style truth and reconcilation between the antagonists there will never be peace because the scars are far deeper than the surface of the land, and I certainly recognize that Israeli pain is sincere.


Elliott Aron Green - 6/8/2010

Alex, I suppose that "Arab-Israel conflict" or "Arab-Jewish conflict" are the best names available for the conflict that we are dealing with. But we ought to keep in mind that outside powers, Western powers and the Communist USSR, have encouraged the conflict and continuation of the conflict. Both have often instigated the Arab side against Israel. This is true of the UK [starting in 1920, at least] and the USSR. Now, the Obama administration seems to want to take up the British role of active pro-Arabism and pro-Islamism. Obama's Middle Eastern policy seems a throwback to John Foster Dulles' policy back in the 1950s, with his Baghdad Pact and his claim, relayed through the US mainstream media of the time that the Arabs, as Muslims, were stalwart anti-Communists. So, in sum, outside powers have always been involved in encouraging war and instigating the Arabs.

The false notion of a "palestinian people" is one of the obstacles to peace in the Middle East. Here is my modest contribution to refuting the notion that there was ever a "palestine" except in the Western mind and never a "palestinian people."
http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html

Note: The Arab Marxist author, the late Abdel-Razek Abdul-Kader, used the term "Jewish-Arab conflict" in the title of his book: Le Conflit judeo-arabe. However, Abdel-Kader was well aware of the nefarious British role in instigating conflict between Jews and Arabs. Curiously, this book has never been translated into English.


Elliott Aron Green - 6/8/2010

`Umar, I want to be fair to you and give you the opportunity to get to know my view of the history of the names by which the Land of Israel has been called. Can you substantively disprove my contentions?

http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html


art eckstein - 6/7/2010

Every piece of land that came into Jewish hands before 1947 was bought from willing Arab sellers, and lots of these willing Arab sellers were smallholders, not absentee landlords. The rest of pre-1967 Israel was the result of a victory the proto-Israelis won in a war in which the proto-Israelis were the ones attacked, and which for months it looked like they were losing.

Keep crying, Omar. Fahrettin told you long ago that the choice was either 60 more years of military humiliation, or making the deal and creating a modern society. The Turks made the deal, in the sense that 1/3 or more of them are refugees from Europe, but they're not going back. The Indians and Pakistanis did too. And the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Middle Eastern countries-- MORE Jews than were Palestinian refugees, Omar--they made the deal too, and got on with creating a modern society. If you can't, then take responsibility for an irresponsible decision. DO NOT BLAME OTHERS.

Meanwhile people of your type shout "Go Back to Auschwitz!", as the IHH thugs did on that ship.


omar ibrahim baker - 6/7/2010

The search for facile answers to the question is another method used by the Zionists/Israelis to obfuscate the essence of , the reality, of the issue.
So are bias and ignorance laden, the PR driven and consciously misleading artificial answers as the author's absurd contention about the Arab’s desire to supplant western culture with a culture of “Dhimitude”!
The common thread to both modes is the attempt that strives to ignore and bypass the real, one and only, genuinely true answer; which is simple and plain enough; Namely:
-For the Arabs:
their unwillingness to accept that Palestine shall be COLONIZED ie dominated, and administered indefinitely by aliens who will and actually do incessantly endeavor to mongrelize then totally efface its Arab national/cultural identity, who presume to have a prior right to dwell in Palestine and to bring in their alien, to the land, co religionists while denying them, the Palestinian Arab indigenous , rightful and legitimate population of the land, the right to go on DWELLING in or RETURN to their own home land of, at least, 15 centuries duration.
Or, in plainer words, to cede and relinquish to the alien conqueror of the land their homeland and/or to accept to live in it as second class citizens dominate by that alien conqueror.
-For the Israelis:
Their unwillingness and inability to accept the historical fact that the land they covet is a populated land with a people, undeniably and legitimately, entitled to go on living in it, to reject and resist any attempt at dominating it by ALIENS’; all being factors that invalidate, deconstruct and unveil the colonialist intrinsic character of their Zionist ideology and historical dream of dominating what they perceive as their own land
Or in plainer words: that there are people in the land they covet with legitimate rights and that people is an obstacle to the realization of their Zionist project.
Patently “clever”, “PR friendly”, “cosmetic” i.e. facile answers will NOT do/
The real answer is the total incompatibility of both communities visions and perceptions whereby one community considers the other as alien conquerors and colons while the other considers the very existence of a Palestinian people in Palestine an obstacle to the fulfillment of its dream and designs
FACILE answers certainly will NOT do!


David Moshe Zohar - 6/7/2010

IHH "peaceniks" (terrorists in disguise)
shouted:"Go back to Auschwitz" at Israeli troops who came to check the contents of vessels on their way to Hamas-occupied Gaza. Only gullible Westerners will continue to believe that Hamas/Taliban/Qaidah/Hizballah etc are "nice guys". But the victime of 9/11 know better.

History News Network