(Video) Teachers of Hate Obstruct Arab-Israeli Peace

A CAMERA video highlights the unhealthy obsession with Jews in too much of the Arab and Muslim world. With so many being taught that al Yahud — the Jews — are unimaginably evil, it will be difficult for leaders to sign and sustain a peace agreement with Israel, and difficult for those societies to function in a healthy manner.

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
19 July '13..




Assume, for a moment, that the Jews are demons.

Imagine having been taught that they purposefully infect your countrymen with AIDS, and that such evil deeds have been a consistent part of Jewish history for thousands of years, ever since they killed their own prophets and tried to kill yours. Believe that their ultimate goal is to corrupt the world and hoard its money and power. Feel certain that they are so diabolical that even rocks and trees — the earth itself — wants them dead.



Could you possibly see them as good neighbors — good people like your own family and friends? Would you support negotiations with them, let alone substantive concessions?

A resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will require trust. But you can't trust the devil. It will require compromise. But you don't compromise with evil. It will require an understanding by each side of the other's legitimate interests and concerns. But if Jews — not just Israelis, not just one or another political party, but the Jews — are irremediably concerned with spreading disease, sowing corruption and accumulating money, it would be reasonable to conclude that they should be met with outright rejection, not concessions.

And what if, despite enormous headwinds driven by public revulsion for these demonized Jews, your leaders nonetheless signed a peace deal with them? Could it take root in such infertile soil?

Can a society that accepts the most outlandish conspiracy theories about Jews, and that has long used Jews as the scapegoat for setbacks and failures, thrive? Can such a society successfully grapple with difficulties that, in reality, have nothing to do with Jews?

Sultan Knish: The Great Error of Israeli Normalization

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
31 May '11

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/great-error-of-israeli-normalization.html

Israel has celebrated its 63rd independence day, but it is a hollow celebration in a country that is less independent than it has been in decades. Rather than working within regional and global realities, its leaders instead fanatically pursue normalization and stabilization. But normalcy and stability are illusions in the Middle East, as the past few months have reminded us.

Pursuing stability with unstable regimes is doomed from the start. Normalization relies on peace achieved through agreements with Arab leaders. But such agreements are always hostage to the corruption of the Arab governments and their desperate need for bigoted populism. Even an agreement with the relatively stable Egypt was not able to outlast a single government. The less stable Palestinian Authority breaks agreements as soon as it signs them.

The Camp David Accords, jewel of the normalization crown, have proven to be worthless. The Oslo Accords were discredited in far less time than that. Had Israel given in to pressure and exchanged the Golan Heights for a peace treaty with Syria-- that agreement would no longer be worth the paper it was written on. And yet in January, the Obama Administration was aggressively pushing Israel to turn over the Golan Heights, for which so many IDF soldiers gave their lives, for exactly that.

Arab leaders don't understand the Western obsession with treaties. Nor do they consider them to be binding in any way. To them an accord or an agreement is nothing but a statement of their interests, which becomes obsolete the moment their interests change. There is no such thing as a permanent peace agreement that binds nations and peoples. All treaties with Arab leaders are signed with individuals and their families. They do not represent any permanent reconciliation or normalization. That can only be achieved through intermarriage and complete cultural blending.

Arabs view the Israeli pursuit of peace as insecurity. When Israel talks about how much it wants peace, it loses face. The Arabs view such talk as a sign of weakness, an admission of guilt by thieves who now want to strike a bargain to avoid what's coming to them, or a disingenuous claim to cover up plans for war.

The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace

Eldad Tzioni
www.newsrealblog.com
16 May '11

The events of “Naqba Day” are just one, very small proof that real peace is impossible.

Not “difficult.” Not “painful.” Truly, 100% impossible.

What were the thousands of protesters from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza demanding? Their demands are simple: the “right to return.” They want Israel to allow millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to flood the country and turn it into another Arab state.

This demand has been absolute and unyielding for 63 years. Never has any Arab leader publicly renounced this demand. Never have the Palestinian Arabs accepted any compromise on the matter. Today, right now, the PLO demands this so-called” right” in unambiguous terms.

There is no need here to mention that there is no such right enshrined in international law, or how easy it is to prove that Arab leaders have used this “demand” as a smokescreen to their real desire to destroy Israel, or the hypocrisy of Palestinian Arab leaders, today, who do not want even those who used to live on land they now control to “return.” All those points are true and can be proven at another time.

The point here is that this demand is completely at odds with Israel’s continued existence. One cannot have it both ways: either the Arabs come and destroy Israel, or Israel is allowed to exist and they never “return.” There is no possible compromise.

(Read full "The ‘Nakba’ Day Protests and the Impossibility of Peace")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Weekly Commentary: We Cannot Be The Lamb In The Biblical Zoo Joke

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
04 November '10

Old joke: A lion and lamb share an exhibit at the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem illustrating the prophetic vision of the Messianic era. Each morning, before visiting hours, the carcass of the lamb from the previous day is replaced by a new live lamb.

Real poll results: Telephone survey 18-20 October, 2010, of adult Israeli Jews by the Dahaf Institute for The Peace Index under the auspices of the Evens Program for Conflict Resolution at Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute.

12. What is your opinion of the following statement: The Palestinians have not accepted the existence of the State of Israel and would destroy it if they could?

Agree 80.4 Disagree 17.8 I don't know 1.5 Refuse to answer 0.4

13. What is your opinion of the following statement: Even if a peace agreement is signed, the Palestinians will never accept Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could?

Agree 74.1 Disagree 21.5 I don't know 3.5 Refuse to answer 0.9

We may have a president who thinks that a piece of paper signed at an impressive ceremony on the White House lawn (best if followed by Nobel Prizes) is the best guaranty of Israel's security. But the Israeli public doesn't buy into the fantasy.

The Israeli public is anything but naive.

They expect their policymakers to, indeed, keep in mind that the Palestinians, and for that matter, the Syrians, will never accept Israel's existence and will destroy it if they could.

And that means that any proposed arrangement or agreement must be considered and reviewed from the perspective of a worse case rather than best case scenario.

Simply put, policymakers have to assume that the other side's goal will be to exploit the deal to facilitate the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State.

In terms of Syria, that means not taking the reckless simplifying assumption of many in the Israeli military that Syria would never ever attack Israel if they possessed the Golan because they would have no reason to. (Yes, it sounds silly but that is the argument for why the Golan can be relinquished).

In terms of the Palestinians, it mean, first and foremost, taking into account that regardless of what the Palestinians may sign before a sovereign Palestinian state is created, that that sovereign Palestinian state would continue to exist, under international law, even if it abrogated every letter of the agreement.

It is, indeed, a harsh reality.

But it is better to set policy based on reality than fantasy.

We can't afford to be the lamb in the Biblical Zoo joke.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Only Feasible Basis for Arab-Israeli Peace

Daniel Mandel

FrontPageMagazine.com

24 September 09

One of the responses I sometimes receive after publishing articles and delivering speeches pouring cold water on the prospects of current diplomatic efforts to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace is: ‘What should Israel/the West be doing instead?’

As it happens, there is an alternative, but it will convince no one unless the prohibitive costs of the present policy of diplomatic engagement with and funding of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are understood – which, largely, they are not. For even among those not deluded about peace prospects, there are some who believe that diplomatic shadow-boxing brings benefits.

Accordingly, what are these alleged benefits?

· Politicians buy time claiming to be working for peace, even if it never arrives. Yet deception via dissemination of spurious good news simply lulls the public to sleep. That might suit incumbents, who often manage to leave office before the consequences of their temporizing boomerang on their countrymen: Britain’s Stanley Baldwin, retiring in 1937, two years before the consequences of his appeasement policy and lack of rearmament helped to produce a long and bitter World War Two; or Bill Clinton’s inertia in dealing with Al Qaeda, leading to 9/11 early on his successor’s watch, come to mind.

· Negotiations defuse tensions and prevent full-scale hostilities. The absence of hostilities is often meaningless if aggressors patiently utilize truces to prepare for war. Just consider Yasser Arafat’s resort to war in 2000, after seven years of diplomatic “progress”; or Hizballah using the illusory calm of 2000-06 to dig in and plot further aggressions from southern Lebanon, leading to a costly, inconclusive war for Israel.

· Negotiations benefit Israel by warding off even stronger pressures. The Oslo negotiations tell otherwise: where Palestinians prove unwilling, the only remaining room for maneuver lies in pressuring Israel, which Bill Clinton duly did. He even threatened Israel with negative UN votes if Israel didn’t deliver concessions. Under both Clinton and Bush, the State Department refused declaring Palestinian violations by promoting terrorism and incitement to hatred. Chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross told me personally that “we … became so preoccupied with this process that the process took on a life of its own …Every time there was a [Palestinian] behavior, or an incident or an event that was inconsistent with the process … the impulse was to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it and not allow it to break the process.”

Is anything different today?

Fatah, which controls the PA, can hold a conference reasserting its refusal to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state while glorifying terrorists and rejecting an end of claims in any future peace agreement with Israel and yet the Obama Administration acts as though the key to the problem is to stop Jews moving into eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. This is how shadow-boxing and process takes on a life of its own.

(Full Article)

.