Palestinians can save Israel from itself.

Can the Palestinians really do that, to the benefit of everyone? This article says they have the power:

Israel doesn't have peace because peace and fear don't mix well
Israel simply cannot bring itself to use the bargaining chips it holds in exchange for the big prize. Why can’t it deliver the goods?

[...] A feeling of victimhood – as if our lengthy national childhood was one characterized by abuse – has turned us into a country that behaves like an abusive parent. This is how it works in 
nature, where violence is perpetuated from one generation to the next. The parents were fearful and beaten, so the children become thugs, yet remain fearful and lacking in self-confidence.

Where are the keys needed to break this impasse? One of them is the passage of time. Maybe there is no such thing as “Peace Now.” Maybe our temporal proximity to the trauma of the ovens does not allow us to act with cold logic, only with hot passion. Maybe we need to wait for the next generation, already born, to accomplish what two generations – ourselves and our parents – totally failed at doing.

The other key is unfair, placing responsibility for Israel’s wellbeing on the Palestinians, for their own good as well. I liken Israel to a lazy elephant, sprawled across the road. It has no motivation to budge. It enjoys seeing itself as big and powerful, heavy, reclining and satiated.

It’s not surprising that in politics it is the weak and hungry that are agents of change. In contrast to a strong agent that has no motivation to move, the weak Palestinian can effect change. How? Violence has not wrought change, since we have become inured, even addicted to it. Each blow only adds to the historical fate to which we believe we have been subjected to over time – to justifying the present situation on the backdrop of our traumatic past.

Only one thing will raise the elephant from its current pose: a nonviolent campaign of civil disobedience, a creative and determined insurrection aimed at one goal – attaining equal rights. It seems as if there has been a recent awakening among Palestinians in this direction. This is reflected in a transition from a discourse about interests, power, terror and honor to a conversation about values, rights and liberties. Many Palestinians are rightfully angry at Israel, holding it accountable for many wrongs, but they are no longer afraid of it or feel threatened by making peace with it. They have internalized the positive aspects of a political settlement, and, in terms of their political mental framework, they are well ahead of many Israelis. More and more Palestinians are acting in the political arena without fear and with an ideology of nonviolent resistance. Israel has no response to such a course of action, neither a military, political nor moral one.

In contrast, Israelis are still an anxious collective. Since peace and fears don’t mix well together, we still don’t have peace. The dread inside us has taken on a life of its own, to which we’ve become accustomed and even addicted. Fears can play a positive role, keeping us alert in the face of dangers and threats, leading us to deal with them in an appropriate manner. For too many Israelis, any kind of peace is enmeshed in an existential dread, a condition that supposedly conceals a plot to eradicate us, posing risks but no opportunities.

There will only be peace here when the masses and their political leaders internalize the fact that peace is a therapy for our fears. It is the total, completely beneficial alternative to all our historical phobias – a condition that can replace or erase them. Paradoxically, the Palestinians – who now bear the brunt of our current historic phase of fears and phobias – can save Israel from itself. A million Palestinians who relate to Israel and its corrupting occupation with peace and conciliation, rather than with terror and hostility, will do well for themselves and us. [...]

Well, civil disobedience has worked as a political strategy in other places, most recently in South Africa. But I don't know how much of a chance it would have in Israel, as long as rockets keep flying over their borders at them.

If you read the whole thing, it explains a lot about the historical/psychological dynamics at work, that need to be overcome. That's a hard sell though, while the rockets continue to fly, reinforcing the old dynamics.
   

The Irish Solution for Israel?

Maybe:

Applying lessons from Northern Ireland
Israel should push for the establishment of a semi-permanent peace conference involving moderate Arab countries and representatives of the Quartet.

[...] Two creative breakthroughs are needed: the first is to see moderate Arab states as true partners with a common interest in resolving the problem, and to break with the decades old Israeli doctrine that we should never meet the Arab world as a whole. This policy is based on the denial of historical reality: The Arab world as a whole needs to accept Israel's presence in the Middle East.

The Arabs should help us? Yes. Social psychology has shown time and again that the best way to create solidarity between feuding parties is to have them work on a common problem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just our problem: It is one of the whole Arab world, because it fuels Islamic fundamentalism and destabilizes the region. No Palestinian leader can opt for compromise without looking for the legitimacy bestowed by all Arabs.

The second breakthrough we need is to rethink Israel's phobia of participating in permanent conferences that allow a process to evolve. This is exactly the opposite of the situation of the Camp David summit in 2000, which was completely identified with Bill Clinton, who was in the last phase of his presidency. The frantic pressure of having to strike a deal before he left the White House, with no one in sight who would shepherd the process to an end, was a recipe for failure.

Instead we need to apply the model of the Northern Ireland process. In Alderdice's view the major factor that made success in that process possible was the participation of the British and Irish governments, as well as the support and involvement of the American government. All pledged to be there for as long as it took to reach an agreement.

Psychologically, it makes a huge difference to know that external support is there to stay. [...]

Some good stuff here. But where is the Palestinian's Nelson Mandela? That would help too.      

Canada severing ties with Iran

Canada closes embassy in Iran, gives Iranian diplomats in Canada 5 days to leave

TORONTO — Canada shut its embassy in Tehran on Friday, severed diplomatic relations and ordered Iranian diplomats to leave, accusing the Islamic Republic of being the most significant threat to world peace. The surprise action reinforces the Conservative government’s close ties with Tehran’s arch foe Israel but also removes some of Washington’s eyes and ears inside the Iranian capital.

[...]

Baird said Canada was officially designating Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and gave a long list of reasons for Canada’s decision, including Tehran’s support for Syria’s embattled President Bashar Assad in that country’s civil war.

“The Iranian regime is providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime; it refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions pertaining to its nuclear program; it routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide,” Baird said in a statement. “It is among the world’s worst violators of human rights; and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups.”

Baird said he also was worried about the safety of diplomats in Tehran following attacks on the British embassy there.

Britain downgraded ties with Iran following an attack on its embassy in Tehran in November 2011, which it insists was sanctioned by the Islamic Republic’s ruling elite. After the attack, Britain pulled all of its diplomats out of Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats from U.K. soil.

Most European countries maintain a diplomatic presence in Tehran despite increased tensions over European Union sanctions that block imports of Iranian oil. The Swiss represent diplomatic interests of the United States, which broke ties with Tehran after protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in the chaotic months following the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Fifty-two Americans were held for 444 days. [...]

   

Is lsrael really ready to strike Iran? Why now?

Just a bluff? Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran

[...] Is Israel bluffing? Israeli leaders have been claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons since the early 1990s, and defense officials have issued a series of ever-changing estimates on how close Iran is to the bomb. But the saber-rattling has become much more direct and vocal.

[...]

Israel views Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, Iran's support for anti-Israel militant groups and Iranian missile technology capable of hitting Israel.

On Friday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut," and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

When faced with such threats, Israeli has a history of lashing out in the face of world opposition. That legacy that includes the game-changing 1967 Middle East war, which left Israel in control of vast Arab lands, a brazen 1981 airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor, and a stealthy 2007 airstrike in Syria that is believed to have destroyed a nuclear reactor in the early stages of construction.

Armed with a fleet of ultramodern U.S.-made fighter planes and unmanned drones, and reportedly possessing intermediate-range Jericho missiles, Israel has the capability to take action against Iran too, though it would carry grave risks.

It would require flying over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or Turkey. It is uncertain whether any of these Muslim countries would knowingly allow Israel to use their airspace.

With targets some 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away, Israeli planes would likely have the complicated task of refueling in flight. Iran's antiquated air force, however, is unlikely to provide much of a challenge.

Many in the region cannot believe Israel would take such a step without a green light from the United States, its most important ally. That sense is deepened by the heightened stakes of a U.S. election year and the feeling that if Israel acts alone, the West would not escape unscathed.

The U.S. has been trying to push both sides, leading the charge for international sanctions while also pressing Israel to give the sanctions more time. In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran's oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy, and its central bank. Israeli officials say they want the sanctions to be imposed faster and for more countries to join them.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that officials in Israel — all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Iran — were concerned that the measures, while welcome, were constraining Israel in its ability to act because the world expected the effort to be given a chance.

Even a limited Israeli operation could well unleash regionwide fighting. Iran could launch its Shihab 3 missiles at Israel, and have its local proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, unleash rockets. Israel's military intelligence chief, Aviv Kochavi, warned last week that Israel's enemies possess some 200,000 rockets.

While sustained rocket and missile fire would certainly make life uncomfortable in Israel, Barak himself has said he believes casualties would be low — suggesting it would be in the hundreds.

Iran might also try to attack Western targets in the region, including the thousands of U.S. forces based in the Gulf with the 5th Fleet.

An Israeli attack might have other unintended consequences. A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

To some, the greatest risk is to the moribund world economy.

Analysts believe an Israeli attack would cause oil prices to spike, since global markets so far have largely dismissed the Israeli threats and not "price in" the threat. According to one poll conducted by the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm in Bethesda, Maryland, prices would surge by $23 a barrel. The price of oil settled Friday at $97.84 a barrel.

"Traders don't believe there's anything but bluster going on," said Robert McNally, president of Rapidan and an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush. "A potential Israeli attack on Iran is different than almost every scenario that we've seen before."

McNally said Iran could rattle oil markets by targeting oil fields in southern Iraq or export facilities in Saudi Arabia or Qatar — and withhold sales of its own oil and natural gas from countries not boycotting.

Iran also could attempt to carry out its biggest threat: to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil passes. That could send oil prices soaring beyond $200 a barrel. But analysts note Iran's navy is overmatched.

If a surge in oil prices proved lasting, financial markets would probably plummet on concerns that global economic growth would slow and on the fear that any conflict could worsen and spread.

For the U.S. economy, higher gasoline prices would likely result in lower consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of U.S. economic activity. That could have devastating consequences for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

Nick Witney, former head of the EU's European Defense Agency, said "the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe" since the likely spike in the price of oil alone "could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession."

He said this could lead to "messy defaults" by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro. Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that "the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies."

Oil disruptions or higher oil prices will also dent growth in Asia. China, India, South Korea and Japan all buy substantial amounts of Iranian crude and could face temporary shortages.

China's fast-growing economy, which gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, has urged all sides to avoid disrupting supplies. Any impact on China's economy, the world's second-largest, could send out global shockwaves if it dented Chinese demand for industrial components and raw materials.

Why is the issue coming to a head with such unfortunate timing, with the U.S. election looming and the global economy hanging by a razor's edge?

The urgency is fueled by a belief in Israel that Iran is moving centrifuges and key installations deep underground by the summer — combined with doubts about whether either Israel or the United States have the bunker-busting capacity to act effectively thereafter. [...]

But the global repercussions of trying to stop it, are enormous. Could the be a case of the cure being worse than the disease?
     

Flotilla participants got what they wanted

Martyrdom:

Arab Media Reports on Flotilla Participants: Writing Wills, Preparing for Martyrdom, Determined to Reach Gaza or Die

Flotilla Participants

Following is information from the Arab media about some of the flotilla participants. It should be noted that many of these were from the Muslim Brotherhood across the Muslim world.

(For more on this subject, see also MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2986, "MEMRI TV Clips on the Gaza Flotilla: Activists On Board Chant Songs of Martyrdom at Departure," http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4249.htm.)

Egypt

In Friday sermons, Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi' expressed support for Hamas, frequently reiterating harsh statements in favor of jihad and of the armed struggle in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (see http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4254.htm).

The Egyptian flotilla delegation included two members of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament: Muhammad Al-Baltaji and Hazem Farouq.

Al-Baltaji, who is deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc in Egypt, said at a March 2010 conference, "A nation that excels at dying will be blessed by Allah with a life of dignity and with eternal paradise." He also said that his movement "will never recognize Israel and will never abandon the resistance," and that "resistance is the only road map that can save Jerusalem, restore the Arab honor, and prevent Palestine from becoming a second Andalusia.[1] [...]

It goes on to list news reports from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and more, confirming that they were Jihadis preparing to die.

These are Middle Eastern news sources acknowledging this. So why does the Western media keep insisting it was "just humanitarian aid", when everyone in the Middle East knows it wasn't?

President Obama is criticizing Israel for not handling the situation better. Given that many of the flotilla participants were armed to the teeth and ready to die as martyrs, how could it have turned out any differently than it did?

Of course the Muslim Brotherhood was deeply involved, as well as an assortment of Western commies. They have so much in common.
     

The words and deeds of Hamas, leading up to the Gaza conflict. The war was inevitable.

And unavoidable. Look at the video, it's less than 3 minutes, and it's footage you will never see on your TV news (but the Palestinians see it on their TV). Hamas sure wasn't saying "Give Peace a Chance". Quite the opposite; world conquest, and death to anyone who gets in their way. It's part of an ideology that's much bigger than just this war in Gaza.



What really gets me is, all the so-called liberals in the West, bending over backwards to support these goons. And it sure isn't just Jews they want to kill:


And it isn't just the Jews and the Americans:


And it isn't just Jews, Americans and Italians... the list goes on. It sounds a lot like Nazism. Not surprising, given the Nazi roots of this Islamic malaise, which extend back to Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It's the worst features of militant Islam, merged with one of the worst ideologies Western culture has ever created.

Hamas is killing and wounding (shooting in the kneecaps) fellow Palestinians who they suspect might oppose Hamas in favor of Israel. Western liberals could show support for Palestinians who actually want peace, instead of supporting these neo-nazi monsters.


Related Links:

Shahada (Prayer for a son)

Hamas: projecting their own bloodlust?

From Hamas TV: "Brothers of Apes and Pigs"

Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony on Hamas TV
     

Hamas: projecting their own bloodlust?

From MEMRI TV: Hamas Minister of Culture Atallah Abu Al-Subh:

"Bush Is a Dracula-Style Vampire. The Blood of Afghan Children Drips from His Fangs onto His Lips and Chest."

Click here to view the clip on MEMRI TV

Well, there's a grown-up way to talk about politics. But such bloody references are all too common. I think it's a classic case of projection, where people project their own desire for bloodshed onto others. And it's actively taught and propagated. Here is a photo of a Palestinian girl at a kindergarten graduation ceremony:


She is holding hands with red paint on them. The red paint is meant to represent the blood of lynched Jews. In Western culture, the term "blood on your hands" is generally considered to have a negative, shameful connotation. Among the Palestinian extremists, it's something to be proud of. It's teaching the children to emulate what the adults do with real blood when they kill Jews:


The above photo is from the Lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah. For many this is the reality of Islam, "The Religion of Peace".

I previously posted some video of Dr. Wafa Sultan in a debate on Al Jazzera TV. Several topics, including the Danish cartoons and the Palestinian situation, were discussed. During that debate, she said:

[...] “If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light.” [...]

When asked if she condemned Jewish violence against Palestinians, she replied that she condemned the violence on both sides, but added that the difference is, the Jews genuinely WANT peace, while the Palestinians are being taught by their Imams to actively fight it.

This created a fury in the studio, and even the moderator sided against her. In following week, the show featured an Imam who insisted a Fatwa must be issued to condemn Dr. Sultan to death for what she said.

There are Palestinians who want peace with Israel. But having to live amongst crazies like these, it's not hard to understand why they don't step forward publicly and say so.

The Islamo-fascists like to tell stories about how Jews drink the blood of Palestinian children, and even make Matzah balls with it! Isn't it about time we stopped encouraging and financially supporting the crazies? Can there ever be peace while you encourage and reward such insanity?


If you think this photo is cute, you should see the video, where children in Gaza perform a monstrous “play,” dressed as suicide bombers and terrorists, waving knives and guns, in front of a crowd of doting parents. The new baby boomers... literally. And financially supported with Western tax dollars.
     

Obama: A Change Hamas can believe in

Why is the terrorist group Hamas so enthusiastic about supporting Obama? From Nealz Nuze:

THE MESSIAH "UNDERSTANDS" HAMAS

I touched on this briefly on the program yesterday. Barack Obama says that he understands why top Hamas advisers support him for president. Isn't that sweet? He says, "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush."

My translation? Horsesqueeze.

Are we really to believe that Hamas would endorse a candidate for the US presidency based on the fact that he has spent some time in the Muslim world? Not exactly. Muslim terrorists and radicals will endorse and support Barack Obama because they know he will not be a bother to them. He will not stand up to Islamic extremism. This is a guy who wants talk, not action. They absolutely love talk, Muslims have managed to become about 25% of the population of Europe while all this talking is going on. When people are just sitting around talking it leaves radical Muslims free to act. You talk. We'll act.

There's more Obamanation news out there. Now we read that Obama referred to Israel as a "constant sore" that infects all of our foreign policy. Well, that certainly ought to really bring on the support from Jewish voters.

OBAMA'S SUPPORT ... IN PALESTINE

Al-Jazeera has produced a report showing Palestinians in Gaza campaigning for Barack Obama. In fact, not only are they campaigning but they are working at a phone bank, calling people in America to ask them to vote for Obama. One of the pro-Obama Palestinian organizers says that he is voting for Barack Obama because he studied his campaign manifesto and thought that he was a man capable of change.

Change? Well, if we stopped fighting Islamic radicalism ... that would be a change, wouldn't it? That would be change that Muslims can believe in.

(bold emphasis mine) I'm sure Hamas agrees with Obama's "constant sore" remark about Israel. And an aggressor always finds an appeaser more appealing. Hamas favors not only Obama, but the Democrats generally. It's a fact.

Now Obama is making a fuss about a speech President Bush made to the Israeli Knesset. Obama was not singled out in the speech, but he apparently sees himself in the remarks. Obama has said that we should be talking to Iran, just as many other Democrats have too. Obama's remarks are a matter of public record. He did say it. Yet he wasn't singled out in the speech. So what's the fuss about? Is no one allowed to disagree with Obama? Is it too distracting from his efforts to get himself elected?