It defies logic. It truly does.

The lies that am referring to claim that Israel is culpable in the origin and suffering of the Palestinian refugees – when the truth originates in precisely the opposite direction. The Arabs are the source of the refugee problem, just as they are the source of their suffering as well.

I have argued this point about the Palestinian refugees for two decades, and few seem able to absorb the point.

If the world truly wants to help Palestinian refugees, they first need to stop lying about them.

Here is an awesome video that you should pass on to as many people as you know:

Israel is not the source or the cause of the refugee problem.

However, spending too much time in a fantasy world can kill you. Living lives of fantasy killed the US economy. Clinging to the fantasy that Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy killed six million Jews. The fantasy of a world without God killed even more via communism.

So, choose your fantasies wisely, or better yet, just be real.

One particular fantasy that troubles me most is the one where you give the Palestinians everything that they ask for, and the problems in the Middle East disappear. One problem with this particular fantasy is that the Palestinians want Israel eliminated, and many want all the Jews in the world massacred.

Remember the joke about the moderate Palestinian arguing with the radical Palestinian? Yeah, the moderate only wanted to kill the Jews in Israel.

Here’s the intro to an article in Frontpage Magazine, Time to Face Reality:

The idea that conflicts between peoples can be resolved by diplomatic negotiation has frequently been a dangerous delusion. Duplicitous states bargain in bad faith, using the process to buy time and mask their aggression. States unwilling or unable to use force will make diplomacy an excuse to substitute words for deeds. Too often, as historian Robert Conquest wrote about Cold War diplomacy with the Soviet Union, “since diplomats’ forte is negotiation, they believe negotiation to be good in itself . . . But the Soviets did what their interests required when the alternative seemed less acceptable, and negotiation was merely a technical adjunct.”

And, Frontpage leads the article with this lovely picture:

Isn’t that just a lovely bit of Palestinian imagery?

The author, Bruce Thornton, goes on to say:

The 60-year-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is the textbook example of the dangers of insincere diplomatic negotiation. The latest phase of that struggle is the threat of the Palestinians to ask the U.N. Assembly to change their status from non-voting observer “entity” to non-voting observer state. “The change,” The New York Times writes, “would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court.” The United States has threatened to veto such a move if it comes before the Security Council, which unlike the Assembly can grant full U.N. membership as a state. Thus the U.S. is furiously lobbying other states in order to head off a move that could, according to the director of the American Task Force on Palestine, “inflame emotions [in the Middle East] and bring anti-American sentiments to the forefront across the region” already roiling with revolution. A United States veto, former ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk agrees, “will provoke a Palestinian awakening” and incite “new violence” for which “we will be blamed.”

Really?

The US is worried about its image?

How about something more esoteric, like right and wrong?

How about making sure that the Palestinians live up to their agreements first, before offering them something like statehood?

In one part of the piece the writer quotes Barry Rubin:

Barry Rubin outlines this dismal history of the wages of bad-faith negotiation: “Since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has made several agreements with Israel. In exchange for being handed control over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank; billions of dollars in aid; the supply of weapons; the return of tens of thousands of Palestinians to these territories; and many other benefits, the PA promised to do various things in return. These include an end to incitement to kill Israelis; stopping terrorism; and negotiating in good faith for a comprehensive agreement.” Yet the P.A. has not fulfilled any of these promises for which it received such concessions. Indeed, as Rubin continues, “Since Hamas attacked Israel with rockets and mortars setting off a war in December 2008, the PA has refused to negotiate with Israel. When President Barack Obama in September 2009, announced he wanted to hold direct talks in Washington, the PA refused. In 2010, when Israel, at the request of President Barack Obama, froze all construction on settlements for nine months, the PA again wouldn’t talk.” Clearly, negotiation is a tactic to be used depending on circumstances, and the P.A. believes at this moment that the U.N. is a better avenue for achieving its aims than is engaging in talks with Israel.

I’m sorry. The fantasy that describes Palestinians as being good little boys and girls if they only had their own state… That fantasy is deadly.

If you want to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict a large dose of reality is the only way.

—————————————

Read the rest of the Front Page Magazine’s article, here.

Here are a few of the things this video covers:

• Why 40% of all resolutions from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) were against Israel.
• Why there is a historic relationship between communism and Islamism.
• What the Durban III conference is, why it’s bad, and what you can do.

This is a GREAT video.

Go ahead, watch it. And then…

…go ahead and pass it on.

For more information, go to: ISRAEL NOW.

It’s this classic love story where a girl (or guy) desperately in love acts in an outrageously hateful way to get the attention of the one that she loves.

What evidence do we have of this heated devotion?

I know that you won’t believe me, so I’ll let Hamas speak for themselves. Here’s a quote from the Jerusalem Post:

On Friday, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky, relating to the planned Lebanese flotilla, said those who wish to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza should do so by land and not try to break Israel’s sea blockade.

Hamas reacted furiously to these comments, calling them – according to an Al-Jazeera report – tantamount to “collaboration with the Israeli occupier.”

[Here's where they declare their amorous inentions]

“The UN call to international organizations to use the overland road to Gaza instead of the sea is unacceptable and illegal,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zahri said.

Jerusalem Post, Online ed. Sunday, July 25, 2010

Instead of docking in an Egyptian port and delivering goods overland from Egypt, Hamas wants the the ships to be escorted by the Israeli navy to an Israeli port. Hamas really doesn’t like it when they have to deal with Egypt. They want to work with Israelis. They don’t want non-Israelis to handle the cargo.

I bet you that the next thing they ask for is Kashrut certification and Israeli flags.

Love is in the air.

I have been saying this for years, and it’s nice to know that a British combat veteran, Colonel Richard Kemp, is saying the same thing.

(A HUGE thanks goes to Sabra for this one!)

The video comes courtesy of UN Watch (www.unwatch.org) and can be found on their page here:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409

Here is the text from the above article:

GENEVA, October 16, 2009 — Today’s emergency UN Human Rights Council debate on the Goldstone Report predictably saw a line-up of the world’s worst abusers condemn democratic Israel for human rights violations. In a heated lynch mob atmosphere, Kuwait slammed Israel for “intentional killing, intentional destruction of civilian objects, intentional scorched-earth policy,” saying Israel “embodied the Agatha Christie novel, ‘Escaped with Murder’.” Pakistan said the “horrors of Israeli occupation continue to haunt the international community’s conscience.” The Arab League said, “We must condemn Israel and force Israel to accept international legitimacy.” Ahmadinejad’s Iran said “the atrocities committed against Palestinians during the aggressions on Gaza should be taken seriously” and followed up by the international community “to put an end to absolute impunity and defiance of the law.” What the world’s assembled representatives did not expect, however, was the speech that followed (see text below), organized by UN Watch. We invited as our speaker a man who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend the democratic world from the murderous Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taleban. The moment he began his first sentence, the room fell silent. Judge Goldstone, author of the distorted report that prompted today’s one-sided condemnation of Israel but not Hamas, had refused to hear Col. Kemp’s testimony during his “fact-finding” hearings. But UN Watch made sure today that this hero’s voice would be heard — at the U.N., and around the world

 —————————————

 UN Watch Oral Statement
Delivered by Colonel Richard Kemp
UN Human Rights Council
12th Special Session, 16 October 2009
Debate on Goldstone Report

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

———————————————

Wow.