Mubarak: No need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has told Israel's Channel One television that there is no need for the Arabs in general and for the 'Palestinians' in particular to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"I say to Israeli citizens, including Jews, Muslims and others, that there is no such thing as a state in which all the citizens are Jews," Mubarak told Israel's Channel One network.
"In Egypt, we have Muslims, Christians and Jews and there is no problem. When they wanted to establish a Muslim state in Kosovo, the world came out against it because it did not want a Muslim state in central Europe," he said in the interview broadcast Saturday night.

'Palestinian Authority' negotiator Nabil Shaath echoed Mubarak's words.

Senior Palestinian Authority negotiator Nabil Shaath has announced that the PA will never accept Israel as a Jewish state. In addition, he threatened war if the PA fails to obtain its demands through negotiations, saying, “A Palestinian state will arise, either through negotiations or through armed resistance.”
...
Shaath said that recognizing Israel as Jewish state would undermine the PA's demand for the “right of return,” which would grant Israeli citizenship to the millions of descendants of Arab who fled Israel during its War of Independence.
He also claimed that accepting a Jewish state “will directly threaten the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in Israel.”

Of course, the 'Palestinians' conveniently ignore the fact that the 'Palestinian Authority' is insisting on a Judenrein (Jew-free) 'state of Palestine,' and the fact that there are several countries in the Middle East in which only Muslims can live and/or exercise full political rights (including, de facto, Egypt).
What could go wrong?

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The Muslim Brotherhood is looking good about now

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Finally honesty from Palestinians

PLO ambassador in Lebanon:
Peace talks are stage in delegitimizing "rebellious, racist" Israel

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The PLO's ambassador to Lebanon says that the current peace talks "are not a goal," but just another stage in the Palestinian attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy. The Palestinian Authority official daily reported that the Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah described the peace talks as part of a broader process to isolate Israel, "threaten its legitimacy" and present it as a "rebellious, racist state." Abdullah indicated that this goal to call attention to Israel's "war crimes" and isolate it, as was done to South Africa, is already being realized: "Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes."
Following are the Palestinian goals for the peace talks, according to the PLO Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah:
"The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state. He noted that Israel faces international isolation with doubt cast on its legitimacy, because of its actions and the war crimes which it has carried out. He added, 'Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2010]
Comment: Given this reality any Western power contributing to this strategy is part of THE problem and is definantely a problem for us. We shall now rethink our foreign diplomacy policies.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

on a dark night you might see Hillary say the same thing when drunk... something I don't ever want to see

noahdavidsimon's posterous

In Contrast to Palestine: Partitions, Population Transfers, and no demanded "Right of Return"

This is a Guest Blog by Wales-based historian Professor William Rubinstein:
What a surprising number of people, even those who are highly sympathetic to Israel, fail to realise, is that the Partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1947-48 has many parallel examples, and is far from unique in modern history. Moreover, the population transfers which occurred there at that time are also far from unique, and for the most part they have never been questioned. The most obvious precedent for the Partition of Palestine, and the one the British almost certainly had in mind, was the Partition of Ireland in 1922. In that year, Ireland was divided between the Roman Catholic-dominated Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland), and the Protestant-dominated Northern Ireland, which remained within the United Kingdom. For decades, the Roman Catholics in the north of Ireland had demanded, first, “Home Rule” for the whole of the island, and then, with the ascendancy of Sinn Fein, complete independence. These goals were, for decades, fiercely resisted by the Protestants of the north.
A civil war in Ireland almost began in 1914, delayed only by the outbreak of the First World War, and then began after the end of that conflict. The division of Ireland into two states has been opposed by Roman Catholics of the south to this day, although most moderates now accept it as a reality. The IRA, however, has never accepted it, and, like the PLO and later Hamas, commenced a terror campaign in the 1960s which culminated in the murders of over 3000 persons. Nevertheless, the Partition of Ireland has been relatively peaceful, and was certainly the only way to end the bitter conflict there.
Sikhs fleeing the newly-created Pakistan
At exactly the same time as the Palestine Mandate was being divided into a Jewish and a Palestinian state, a vastly greater partition was taking place 1500 miles to the east, the Partition of British India into a largely Hindu India and a Muslim Pakistan (which at the time included what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh). There, the Partition of India and the creation of a specifically Muslim state was demanded by Muslims.
It is worth remembering that while in Palestine the Arabs opposed the creation of a largely Muslim Palestinian state, in India it was the Muslims who demanded Partition. Pakistan has no historical foundation whatever, and the very name Pakistan was invented by Muslim students and activists in London in 1931. The Partition of British India in 1947-48 was accomplished by bloodshed on an unimaginable scale, with probably 500,000 deaths in communal violence. Literally millions of Hindus and Muslims living in the “wrong” part of British India left for the other state. Karachi became known as a city of refugees.

Yet – in contrast to Palestine – no one demands the “Right of Return” for these “refugees”, and in any case neither India nor Pakistan would be likely to allow any of their former residents back.

Sudeten German expellees from Czechoslovakia
 At that very time, too, vast population transfers were taking place in early post-war Europe. An estimated ten million Poles, Balts, and Russians fled to the West, ahead of the advancing Red Army, or, in some instances, were deliberately moved on. In Czechoslovakia, Eduard Beneš, the “good” Czech head of state between the end of the Nazi occupation in 1945 and the imposition of Stalinist rule in 1948, expelled three million Sudeten Germans from the Sudetenland in 1945-46. The Sudetenland is the rim area of what is now the Czech Republic whose demands (sparked by Hitler) for incorporation into the German Reich led to the Munich Crisis of 1938. After the war, the democratic Czech government was taking no more chances with a potential Fifth Column in the reborn state, and expelled the Sudeten Germans en masse. If there were any demands for their “Right of Return” these were unacknowledged. Most fled to West Germany, where, frankly, they were a lot better off than they would have been in a wretched Stalinist satellite regime, which is what Czechoslovakia became in 1948.
Few people know or care about these events: only in the case of the Palestinians is the issue of Partition and the “Right of Return” being kept alive, nearly 65 years later.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Helen Thomas receives Lifetime Achievement award from CAIR

About what we'd expect considering her comments about "Jews out of Palestine' and 'go home' to Poland...'

The longtime White House correspondent who resigned from Hearst newspapers in June in the wake of comments she made about Israel will receive a lifetime achievement award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
CAIR is honoring Helen Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent and now 90 years old, at its Leadership Conference and 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet on Oct. 9 in Arlington, Va.
Speakers will also include Oxford Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan.
Thomas started at the White House as a reporter during the Kennedy administration. In a video interview captured at a White House Jewish heritage event for RabbiLIVE.com that spread quickly across the Internet, Thomas advised Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else."
The White House Correspondents Association and the White House rebuked Thomas, and President Obama said she made the right call in stepping down for the "offensive" remarks.

Congratulations are due to both CAIR and Thomas; mainstreaming anti-Semitism and rewarding hate will no doubt further the cause of Mid East peace - at least the kind of peace desired by those seeking the destruction of Israel.

Hat Tip: David Paulin

via americanthinker.com

the real face of CAIR is as ugly as her mug

noahdavidsimon's posterous

POPE BENEDICT IS SILENT ON PIUS 12, THE VATICAN AND THE HOLOCAUST

(4internationa) The essence of Pope Benedict´s visit to England seems to be the following: 1. No mention at all of the serious threat to the Jews of Israel, and the danger to them from an Iranian Fascist Government led by Ahmadinejad, which has threatened Israel with war on many occasions. 2. No mention of the Fascists who seek the destruction of Israel, called “Palestinians”, that is Abbas and Fatah, Hamas, and outside Iran, Hizbullah and Arab Fascist and antisemitic activity in most Arab countries 3. No support or defence of Israel from this Pope. 4. No mention of Christians, and Catholics, being driven out of Iraq. 5. In general, a serious cover provided to Islam and Sharia Law in a score of countries, in many of which Catholics are being killed.

But the key to Benedict lies in the Middle East. Israel is the Homeland of the Jews and the record of the Vatican towards the Jews is the worst possible, and was the centre of antisemitism in the world. Pope Benedict evades all of these issues and lectures the British people about them being “secular”. What a nerve this guy has!
At the centre of this Papal visit to Britain is not that weird cleric John Henry Newman, friend of Chesterton and of all people TS Eliot, but is the record of the Vatican  during the Holoicaust. This is an extract from Jewish Virtual Library on the issue:

(Pius 12 during Holocaust) Pope Pius XII’s (1876-1958) actions during the Holocaust remain controversial. For much of the war, he maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed. He refused pleas for help on the grounds of neutrality, while making statements condemning injustices in general. Privately, he sheltered a small number of Jews and spoke to a few select officials, encouraging them to help the Jews.

The Early Years: The Pope was born in 1876 in Rome as Eugenio Pacelli. He studied philosophy at the Gregorian University, learned theology at Sant Apollinare and was ordained in 1899. He entered the Secretariat of State for the Vatican in 1901, became a cardinal in 1929 and was appointed Secretary of State in 1930. Pacelli lived in Germany from 1917, when he was appointed Papal Nuncio in Bavaria, until 1929. He knew what the Nazi party stood for, and was elected Pope in 1939 having said very little about Adolf Hitler’s ideology beyond a 1935 speech describing the Nazis as “miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel.” Pacelli told 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes on April 28, “It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.” He believed National Socialism was “profoundly anti-Christian and a danger to Catholocism.”⁽¹⁾ Even as Cardinal, Pacelli’s actions regarding Hitler were controversial. Hitler took power on January 30, 1933. On July 20 that same year, Pacelli and German diplomat Franz Von Papen signed a concordat that granted freedom of practice to the Roman Catholic Church. In return, the Church agreed to separate religion from politics. This diminished the influence of the Catholic Center Party and the Catholic Labor unions. The concordat was generally viewed as a diplomatic victory for Hitler.^(1a) Pacelli was elected Pope on March 2, 1939, and took the name Pius XII. As Pope, he had three official positions. He was head of his church and was in direct communication with bishops everywhere. He was chief of state of the Vatican, with his own diplomatic corps. He was also the Bishop of Rome. In theory, at least, his views could influence 400 million Catholics, including those in all the occupied eastern territories – the Poles, Baltics, Croatians, Slovaks and others.⁽²⁾ As soon as he was appointed Pope, Pacelli did speak out against the 1938 Italian racial laws that dealt with mixed marriages and children of mixed marriages.⁽³⁾ However, he issued no such condemnation of Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass) which occurred in November 1938, and which recent evidence shows he was informed of by Berlin’s papal nuncio. As the security of the Jewish population became more precarious, Pius XII did intervene the month he was elected Pope, March 1939, and obtained 3,000 visas to enter Brazil for European Jews who had been baptized and converted to Catholicism. Two-thirds of these were later revoked, however, because of “improper conduct,” probably meaning that the Jews started practicing Judaism once in Brazil. At that time, the Pope did nothing to save practicing Jews.⁽⁴⁾

Cries for Help: Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews. In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.⁽⁵⁾ Within the Pope’s own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d’affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.⁽⁶⁾ In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain “neutral,” and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.⁽⁷⁾  In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”⁽⁸⁾ On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, “The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.”⁽⁹⁾ Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope’s behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.⁽¹⁰⁾ Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.⁽¹¹⁾

Papal Reasons and Responses: The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, “German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race,” which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was “unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities.”⁽¹²⁾ One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti-communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.⁽¹³⁾

The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, “The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses.”⁽¹⁴⁾ During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the “hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.”⁽¹⁵⁾ The Pope never mentioned the Jews by name.
In a September 1940 broadcast, the Vatican called its policy “neutrality,” but stated in the same broadcast that where morality was involved, no neutrality was possible.⁽¹⁸⁾ This could only imply that mass murder was not a moral issue.
The Pope’s indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Petain if the Vatican would object to anti-Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.⁽¹⁶⁾ When Petain’s French puppet government introduced “Jewish statutes,” the Vichy ambassador to the Holy See informed Petain that the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with “charity” and “justice.”⁽¹⁷⁾
Robert Wistrich notes that “by the end of 1942, the Vatican was among the best-informed institutions in Europe concerning the Holocaust. Except for the Germans or perhaps British intelligence, few people were more aware of the local details as well as the larger picture.”^(17a)
On September 8, 1943, the Nazis invaded Italy and, suddenly, the Vatican was the local authority. The Nazis gave the Jews 36 hours to come up with 50 kilograms of gold or else the Nazis would take 300 hostages. The Vatican was willing to loan 15 kilos, an offer that eventually proved unnecessary when the Jews obtained an extension for the delivery.⁽¹⁹⁾
Pius XII knew that Jewish deportations from Italy were impending. The Vatican even found out from SS First Lieutenant Kurt Gerstein the fate of those who were to be deported.⁽²⁰⁾ Publicly, the Pope stayed silent. Privately, Pius did instruct Catholic institutions to take in Jews. The Vatican itself hid 477 Jews and another 4,238 Jews were protected in Roman monasteries and convents.⁽²¹⁾
On October 16, the Nazis arrested 1,007 Roman Jews, the majority of whom were women and children. They were taken to Auschwitz, where 811 were gassed immediately. Of those sent to the concentration camp, 16 survived.⁽²²⁾

OMG President Obama removes Creator from Declaration of Independence

[UPDATE] The Soros-funded empire strikes back. Media Matters rushes to defend Barack Obama's editing of the Declaration of Independence.

Media Matters chooses to mock those who noticed, rather than deal with the awkward question of exactly why the President of the United States would balk at noting that our rights come from our Creator, not from the goodwill of the government. That sort of question is to be deflected rather than pondered. That's why Soros pays them, after all.

Jason McNew

Hobbes, Locke, and Cicero be damned.  President Obama single handedly overturns Natural Law.

Friday evening President Obama addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.  At around 22:30, he incorporates part of the preamble of The Declaration of Independence, removing "Creator".

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..... endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

After President Obama says "created equal...", there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times.  For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter.  Is looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says.

President Obama, if our Creator is not the purveyor of our human rights, then who is?  The government?

via americanthinker.com

...well at least he isn't a Mooooooslim. I guess

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Abu Bluff threatens to resign if piece talks fail

'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is once again threatening to resign, this time claiming that he will resign if the 'direct talks' with Israel end in failure.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

From JPost:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is once again threatening to resign – this time if the direct peace talks fail, a senior PA official said over the weekend.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

from Daled Amos, this is at least the 15th time Abbas has threatened to quit since he took office:

November 6, 2009

Palestinian Leader Abbas Threatens to Quit

March 18, 2008
Exclusive: Abbas threatens to quit peace talks, revive Fatah terror
(OK, Abbas is not threatening to resign--but we're just getting warmed up...)
Jan 17, 2008
Abbas threatens to quit if 'escalation' continues
June 12, 2007
Fatah movement threatens to quit Hamas-led unity gov't
February 26, 2006
Abbas threatens to quit over Hamas
(Feb 28, 2006 Abbas: I did not threaten to quit)
30 January 2006
Abbas to resign if Hamas fails to work with foreign powers
January 25, 2006
Palestinians Vote in First Legislative Elections in a Decade
Abbas is "a touchy man of dark moods, who often threatens to quit, as he quit as prime minister after four months in 2003 when Mr. Arafat did not allow him enough power."
Jan 17, 2006
PA head Abbas threatens to quit
December 16, 2005
Palestinian Chief Threatens to Quit Over Rival Fatah Slate
March 30, 2005
Palestinian Abbas threatens to quit unless Fatah groups cooperate.
Wed 09 Sep 2003
Abbas threatens to quit unless he gets more authority
Thursday, September 4, 2003
Abbas threatens to quit over leadership
Aug. 21, 2003
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas threatens to resign unless Yasser Arafat approves a crackdown on Hamas
July 9, 2003
U.S. Supports Abbas After Palestinian Leader Threatens to Quit
April 08, 2003
Moderate Palestinian PM threatens to quit as Arafat hinders change.

I almost didn't reblog this. for one thing I thought it was a rerun of an old post. for another... it brings almost no news. The list above from Daled Amos is helpful to help others understand. the PA is frankly just getting boring. Not only are they doing the same old, same old... but even the most hard core people interested in this issue on all sides of the argument are bored with this story.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Free Jonathan Pollard: Will Obama make a sacrifice for peace?

Aaron Lerner reports that there is one circumstance under which Israel would agree to a three-month extension of the 'settlement freeze' and no political party would object: If the United States would release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in return.

IMRA understands that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would have no
problem getting his cabinet to approve a three month extension of the settlement construction freeze in exchange for the release of Jonathan Pollard. Just as important - if not more - none of the parties in the ruling coalition are expected to threaten to leave the government in the event that such a deal is implemented.
In the coming days we will see just how seriously interested the Obama administration is in extending the settlement construction freeze for another three months.
They certainly "talk the talk" when it comes to lecturing Israel about the need to make "sacrifices for peace."
But now the shoe is on the other foot.
Is President Obama willing to make a "sacrifice for peace"?

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. Obama has shown again and again that he has no interest in real peace and is only interested in punitive actions he can get away with. Now that Obama has little chance of getting reelected I don't think he will cater to popular sentiment. Obama is a lot like his ass hat friend Abbas. He has nothing to gain by doing the right thing.

noahdavidsimon's posterous