The United States' President embraces the Muslim Brotherhood's Agenda

Deciphering Obama in Cairo
Center for Security Policy Jun 05, 2009 By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

By and large, President Obama's address yesterday in Cairo has been well received in both the so-called "Muslim world" and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood - the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam's theo-political-legal program known as "Shariah" through stealthy means where violence ones are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech.
The Brotherhood has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love freedom - whether or not they recognize the threat Shariah represents to it - have abundant cause for concern about "The Speech," and what it portends for U.S. policy and interests.
Right out of the box, Mr. Obama mischaracterized what is causing a "time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world." He attributed the problem first and foremost to "violent extremists [who] have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." The President never mentioned - not even once - a central reality: The minority in question, including the Muslim Brotherhood, subscribes to the authoritative writings, teachings, traditions and institutions of their faith, namely Shariah. It is the fact that their practice is thus grounded that makes them, whatever their numbers (the exact percentage is a matter of considerable debate), to use Mr. Obama euphemistic term, "potent."
Instead, the President's address characterized the problem as a "cycle of suspicion and discord," a turn of phrase redolent of the moral equivalence so evident in the Mideast peace process with it "cycle of violence." There was not one reference to terrorism, let alone Islamic terrorism. Indeed, any connection between the two is treated as evidence of some popular delusion. "The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust."
Then there was this uplifting, but ultimately meaningless, blather: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."
More often than not, the President portrayed Muslims as the Brotherhood always does: as victims of crimes perpetrated by the West against them - from colonialism to manipulation by Cold War superpowers to the menace of "modernity and globalization that led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam." Again, no mention of the hostility towards the infidel West ingrained in "the traditions of Islam." This fits with the meme of the Shariah-adherent, but not the facts.
Here's the irony: Even as President Obama professed his determination to "speak the truth," he perpetrated a fraud. He falsely portrayed what amounts to authoritative Islam, namely Shariah Islam, as something that is "not exclusive," that "overlaps" and "need not be in competition" with "America. Actually, Shariah is, by its very nature, a program that obliges its adherents to demand submission of all others, Muslims (especially secular and apostate ones) and non-Muslims, alike.
This exclusiveness (read, Islamic supremacism) applies most especially with respect to democratic nations like America, nations founded in the alternative and highly competitive belief that men, not God, should make laws. Ditto nations that stand in the way of the establishment of the Caliphate, the global theocracy that Shariah dictates must impose its medieval agenda worldwide. In practice, Shariah is the very antithesis of Mr. Obama's stated goal of "progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Its "justice" can only be considered by civilized societies to be a kind of codified barbarism.
At least as troubling are what amount to instances of presidential dawa, the Arabic term for Islamic proselytization. For example, Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." It seems unimaginable that he ever would ever use the adjective to describe the Bible or the Book of Mormon.
Then, the man now happy to call himself Barack Hussein Obama (in contrast to his attitude during the campaign) boasts of having "known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." An interesting choice of words that, "first revealed." Not "established," "founded" or "invented." The President is, after all, a careful writer, so he must have deliberately eschewed verbs that reflect man's role, in favor of the theological version of events promoted by Islam. Thus, Mr. Obama has gone beyond the kind of "respectful language" he has pledged to use towards Islam. He is employing what amounts to code - bespeaking the kind of submissive attitude Islam demands of all, believers and non-believers alike.
Elsewhere in the speech, Mr. Obama actually declared that "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Note that, although he referred in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict to "vile stereotypes" of Jews, he did not describe it as "part of his responsibility as President" to counter anti-Semitic representations.
Unremarked was the fact that such incitement is daily fare served up by the state media controlled by his host in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, by the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas and by every other despot in the region with whom Mr. Obama seeks to "engage." Worse yet, no mention was made of the fact that some of those "vile stereotypes" - notably, that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" - are to be found in "the Holy Koran," itself.
Perhaps the most stunning bit of dawa of all was a phrase the President employed that, on its face, denies the divinity of Jesus - something surprising from a self-described committed Christian. In connection with his discussion of the "situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs," Mr. Obama said, "...When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."
Muslims use the term "peace be upon them" to ask for blessings on deceased holy men. In other words, its use construes all three in the way Islam does - as dead prophets - a treatment wholly at odds with the teachings of Christianity which, of course, holds Jesus as the immortal Son of God.
If Mr. Obama were genuinely ignorant about Islam, such a statement might be ascribed to nothing more than a sop to "interfaith dialogue." For a man who now pridefully boasts of his intimate familiarity with Muslims and their faith, it raises troubling questions about his own religious beliefs. At the very least, it conveys a strongly discordant message to "the Muslim world" about a fundamental tenet of the faith he professes.
Finally, what are we to make of Mr. Obama statements about America and Islam? Since he took office, the President has engaged repeatedly in the sort of hyping of Muslims and their role in the United States that is standard Muslim Brotherhood fare. In his inaugural address, he described our nation as one of "Christians, Muslims and Jews." Shortly thereafter, he further reversed the demographic ordering of these populations by size in his first broadcast interview (with the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network), calling America a country of "Muslims, Christians and Jews."
Yesterday in Cairo, the President declared that "Islam has always been a part of America's story." Now, to be sure, Muslims, like peoples of other faiths, have made contributions to U.S. history. But they have generally done so in the same way others have, namely as Americans - not as some separate community, but as part of the "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one) that Mr. Obama properly extolled in The Speech.
Unfortunately, a pattern is being established whereby President Obama routinely exaggerates the Muslim character of America. For example, at Cairo University, he claimed there are nearly seven million Muslims in this country - a falsehood promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends - when the actual number is well-less than half that. Shortly before The Speech, in an interview with a French network, Mr. Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Incredible as these statements may seem, even more astounding is their implication for those who adhere to Shariah. The President's remarks about America as a Muslim nation would give rise to its treatment by them as part of dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, as opposed to dar al-harb (i.e., the non-Muslim world).
Were the former to be the case, Shariah requires faithful Muslims to rid the United States of infidel control or occupation. And we know from last year's successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation - a so-called "charity" engaged in money-laundering for one of the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist operations, Hamas - that such an agenda tracks precisely with the Brothers' mission here: "To destroy Western civilization from within America, by its own miserable hand."
This reality makes one of Mr. Obama's promises in Cairo especially chilling. Near the end of his address, the President expressed concern that religious freedom in the United States was being impinged by "rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation." He went on to pledge: "That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."
Let us be clear: Muslim charities have run into difficulty with "the rules" because they have been convicted in federal court of using the Muslim obligation to perform zakat (tithing to charity) to funnel money to terrorists. At this writing, it is unclear precisely what Mr. Obama has in mind with respect to this commitment to "ensure [Muslims] can fulfill zakat." But you can bet that the Brotherhood will try to translate it into the release of their imprisoned operatives and new latitude to raise money for their Shariah-promoting, and therefore seditious, activities in America.
I could go on, but you get the point. The Speech contained a number of statements about the laudable qualities of America, the need for freedom in the Muslim world, about women's rights and the desirability of peace. But its preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood's agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West's submission to it.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Newsmax, June 5, 2009.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18084.xml

Short Analysis of Obama's Speech by Ex-PLO Terrorist

Truth, Justice and Tolerance upside down
Walid Shoebat and Keith Davies, June 6. 2009

Our President just spoke in Cairo and he said he wanted to speak truth but the speech was a lie from start to finish. He tried to portray Islam as a tolerant religion. Try ask the families of the million and half Armenian Christians butchered by the Turks in the name of Allah, or the Hindus butchered in the tens of millions in India during the middle ages or try telling the 850,000 Jews who fled Arab countries between 1948 and 1973, or what about the millions of Christians and Black Muslims (not real Muslims according to the Arabs) butchered by the Arab Muslims in Darfur Sudan; just a few of the tolerant moments of Islam. Maybe we could examine the persecution of Copts, Maronites and other Middle Eastern Christians over the last several centuries including the current times. I personally have spoken to dozens of families about how their wives, daughters, aunts and nieces have been subjected to unspeakable rapes, kidnapping and imprisonment with no course for redress.

John Adams the second president may have signed a peace treaty with Tripoli (morocco) Pirates but did not compliment Islam, the President Obama took those words out of context and then on top omitted the castigation and condemnation of Islam by John Adams’ son; John Quincy Adam’s, the sixth president, who said quote “The essence of his doctrine (Islam) was violence, lust: to exalt brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”

President Obama continues with his lies about the “Justice, progress and dignity of all Human beings in Islam”. Well Mr. President, try asking that question from the wives of most Muslims; if only those women had a chance to taste Western freedom of expression. Our President deceives himself as he deceives others. He is a disgrace to the cause of civil rights, not for just Christians and Jews but to all that live under the yoke of Islam. The huge amount of evidence showing Islamic brutality today and of the past hat is denied by President Obama with omission and unfortunately also denied by many in our society, including most of the church in America and the West.

According to the philosophy of the left and our President, is that if you are a minority you have the right to be more privileged than the majority because of the past injustices that were inflicted on that minority. Affirmative action is for every minority except for Jews/Israelis because if you are a Jew living in the Middle East or Israel you have to be subservient to the Muslims and to our President Barack Hussein Obama, who is “proud of his Muslim heritage.”

If Islam is not a peaceful religion and Zionism is true then I am a proud extremist. The President does not speak the truth and should be impeached for hate crimes and racism against Jews, for despising and undermining our constitution, for attempting to bankrupt the country, for lying to the American people about what he promised them before being elected and allegedly for proposing a racist supreme court judge. America is still divided and not united because the truth is lost, lies are embraced and deception is the order of the day.

In regards to Israel the President made a clear and unequivocal statement at AIPAC about an undivided Jerusalem but that I am sure will be the next change in his position after he pounds the Jews into giving up Judea.

If you are a true liberal how can you justify Jews giving up their homes or expanding their economic welfare because they are Jews? Arabs want a state called Palestine, fine, if that is what they want why Jews can’t live in a state called Palestine as a peaceful minority just like Arabs live within Israel’s Green Line. If Jews cannot be part of “Palestine” then Arabs should not be part of Israel, kick them all out, let them live in their utopia terror state called Palestine. No, because if Israel were to do this they would be called an apartheid state but it is OK to be an Arab and be guilty of an Apartheid policy, which is called “freedom fighting” by the left and the Arabs. How tolerant Mr. President! And for those that say that Jews should not be there in the first place, that is another lie. Jews lived in JUDEA continuously for nearly 4000 years except between 1948 and 1967 when THEY were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians. In 1967 after the Six Day War did Jews return to reclaim the birthright of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hebron is in Judea, Bethlehem the burial place of Rachel is in Judea. If Judea does not belong to the Jews then neither does Tel Aviv or Haifa. Stand up Jews and make your case, stop being so practical and reasonable, your enemies are not interested in land, or economic development, or living in harmony with you, their religion of Islam forbids it, they are only interested in killing you, Islamic tolerance is a myth, a lie and a deception. When they shouted idbah-al-Yahud (slaughter the Jews) prior to 1948 war, prior to 1967 war and today in every mosque in the Middle East, what part of ‘slaughter the Jews’ do you Jews not understand?

When Israel withdrew all the Jews from Gaza, all this brought was more war, actually more Palestinian Arabs died when Israel gave them “freedom,” more Palestinian Arabs have been murdered by their own people; more Palestinian Arabs have been imprisoned by Hamas, due to Israel’s foolish policy which has also caused the death of dozens of Jews, as well as terrifying the whole population of towns in Southern Israel. Yet our rock star President wishes to direct Israel to make the exact same concessions in Judea and Samaria and expect a different result. In fact if Israel does do the President’s bidding, and withdraws from Judea and Samaria can we expect peace or another Gaza blueprint?

You do not have to be a committed right winger or Zionist ideologue, but use ones common sense to be able to understand that the most likely outcome would be another Gaza situation, but this time it will be even worse, because now you have every person in Israel that can be targeted by Hamas Rockets. Yes Hamas rockets, because every person who understands the security situation knows that if Israel hands control over Judea and Samaria to Abbas of the PLO, then Hamas will immediately overthrow him and you will have the same situation as Gaza. Abbas depends on Israel’s security forces for him to maintain power. The whole peace process with Abbas is a complete sham.

If the American administration truly understood the reality then it needs to be racist towards Hamas instead of the Jews, i.e. destroy the terrorists with uncompromising force then you may not get peace but you will have neutralized the enemy and disemboweled their ability from making war which is much better than the current status quo.

If Israel had some common sense it would use the above arguments in the public domain to make their case, but alas they stand silent. By their silence they will not get peace, they will not get security and they will continue to suffer. They suffer because they will not honor truth, they will not honor G-d’s Promise.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/06/truth-justice-and-tolerance-upside-down/

(ENG) Palestine & Israel: 2 States - (ITA) Palestina e Israele: 2 Stati

(ENG) Treaty 'The 2 States' Solution'
There is Nothing New Under the Sun
March 31, 2009 Eli E. Hertz

In 1947 the British put the future of western Palestine into the hands of the United Nations, the successor organization to the League of Nations which had established the Mandate for Palestine. A UN Commission recommended partitioning what was left of the original Mandate - western Palestine, into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab.

The UN Partition Plan

- (Resolution 181), was a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine - Eretz-Israel whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties - Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33 - 12, with 10 abstentions. Among the supporters were both the United States and the Soviet Union, and other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against the vision of the two state solution promising to defy its implementation by force.
Aware of Arabs’ past aggression, the resolution, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:

“… determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]

The ones who sought to alter by force the settlement envisioned in the two state solutions were the Arabs, who threatened bloodshed if the UN were to adopt the Resolution:

“The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.

“Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. … The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.”1 [italics by author]
Arabs’ intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:

“Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 of July 7, 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine.”2

The Partition Plan of 1947 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach a historic compromise between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in western Palestine. Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation.
The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before the resolution was brought to a vote.
Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the Partition Plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation a ’still birth.’
The UN Palestine Commission’s report dated February 16, 1948 (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort

“To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly’s plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory [Eretz-Israel].”

Attempts by Palestinian Arabs to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 - the ‘original’ two state solution - ‘as if nothing had happened’ are a baseless ploy designed to use the resolution as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack Israel with even less defendable borders. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive behavior.
Unfortunately, the world community has been ignoring the prospect that a full-blown independent Palestinian state will become just the kind of rogue state and a home to renegade organizations the world is grappling with today.
In light of the Arab Palestinians’ history of violence, incitement against Jews, and its poor performance coping with limited freedom or autonomy - the equivalent of a ‘half-way house’ to test their readiness to join the family of nations is in order. Considering the support (rather than pressure to ‘toe the line’) that Palestinians enjoy in the international arena, Palestinian independence could very well turn into a genuine nightmare.

[1] United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948. See: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10923.htm. (10923)

[2] See among others, Security Council Resolution S/RES/ 54 (1948) at: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10894.htm. (10894)

Source: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/the-partition-plan-and-the-two-state-solution.html

(ITA) Trattato 'La Soluzione dei 2 Stati'

La Verità potrebbe non sempre vincere, ma è sempre corretta!’ – Eli E. Hertz

Il Piano di ripartizione "soluzione dei due Stati"
Niente di nuovo sotto il sole
31 marzo, 2009 Eli E. Hertz - MythsAndFacts.org
Nel 1947 i britannici hanno messo il futuro della Palestina occidentale nelle mani delle Nazioni Unite, che sono successe alla Lega delle Nazioni che aveva stabilito il Mandato di Palestina.Una Commissione delle Nazioni Unite ha raccomandato la partizione di quanto restava del Mandato originale - la Palestina occidentale da dividere in due Stati, uno ebreo e uno arabo.Il Piano di ripatizione (Risoluzione 181) era una raccomandazione NON vincolante - 'Eretz Israel', la cui implementazione dipendeva dall'accettazione di entrambi le Parti - gli arabi palestinesi e gli ebrei palestinesi.La Risoluzione è stata adottata il 29 novembre 1947, con un voto di 33 favorevoli contro 12 contrari dell'Assemblea Generale, e 10 astenuti.

Fra i favorevoli c'erano Stati Uniti e Unione Sovietica e altre Nazioni, incluse Francia e Australia. Le Nazioni arabe, incluse Egitto, Siria, Iraq e Arabia Saudita hanno denunciato il Piano all'Assemblea Generale e hanno votato in blocco contro la Soluzione dei due Stati, sostendendo che [in loro favore] avrebbero usato la forza.Consapevoli delle passate aggressioni arabe, la Risoluzione, al Paragrafo C, chiede al Concilio di Sicurezza di:

"... definire quale minaccia alla pace, rottura della pace o atto di aggressione, in accordo all'Articolo 39 della Carta, ogni tentativo di alterare con la forza l'insediamento previsto da questa Risoluzione." [grassetto dell'autore]

Coloro che avrebbero usato la forza per alterare l'insediamento previsto nella Soluzione dei due Stati, sono stati gli arabi, che hanno minacciato uno spargimento di sangue se le Nazioni Unite avessero adottato la Risoluzione:"

Il Governo[britannico] di Palestina teme che le lotte in Palestina potrebbero essere molto intensificate al termine del Mandato, e che lo status internazionale delle Nazioni Unite non significherà molto o significherà nulla per gli arabi in Palestina, per cui l'uccisione degli ebrei ora trascende qualsiasi altra considerazione."

"Perciò, la Commissione dovrà affrontare il problema di come evitare certi spargimenti di sangue ben maggiori di quelli che avvengono ora. (...) Gli arabi hanno detto piuttosto chiaramente al Governo palestinese che non si propongono di collaborare o assistere la Commissione, e che, lontano da ciò, propongono di attaccare e impedire il suo lavoro in ogni modo possibile. Non abbiamo ragione di credere che non intendano [fare] quello che dicono."1 [grassetto dell'autore]

Le intenzioni e le azioni arabe non sono migliorate dopo l'applicazione della Risoluzione 181:

"Si considera che il Governo provvisorio di Israele ha accettato il principio di prolungamneto di tregua in Palestina; che gli Stati Membri della Lega araba hanno rigettato successivi appelli del Mediatore delle Nazioni Unite, e del Concilio di Sicurezza nella sua Risoluzione 53 del 7 luglio 1948, per il prolungamento della tregua in Palestina; e che c'è stato un conseguente sviluppo delle rinnovate ostilità in Palestina."2

Il Piano di partizione del 1947 è stato l'ultimo di una serie di raccomandazioni emesse nel corso di anni dal detentore del Mandato e da Commissioni internazionali, pliani designati a raggiungere lo storico compromesso fra arabi palestinesi e ebrei palestinesi in Palestina occidentale. Ogni schema dal 1922 è stato rigettato da parte araba, incluso quello decisamente pro-arabo, perchè questi Piani riconoscevano gli ebrei quali Nazione e davano ai cittadini ebrei del Mandato di Palestina una rappresentanza politica.

Il Piano di partizione è stato rigettato da parte araba non solo verbalmente ma anche concretamente, in modo bellicoso per bloccare l'implementazione e distruggere la Comunità ebraica con la forza delle armi, un obiettivi che gli arabi dichiararono pubblicamente persino prima che la Risoluzione fosse portata al voto.Gli arabi non solo hanno rigettato il compromesso per prevenire lo stabilimento di uno Stato ebraico ma hanno anche bloccato lo stabilimento di uno Stato arabo sotto il Piano di partizione, non solo prima della Guerra israeliana d'indipendenza, ma anche dopo la Guerra, quando essi stessi controllavano il West Bank (1948-1967), rendendo le raccomandazioni 'ancora da far nascere'.

La Commissione di Palestina delle Nazioni Unite riporta il 16 febbraio 1948 (A/AC.21/9) al Concilio di Sicurezza di allora che le ostilità condotte dagli arabi erano uno sforzo"per prevenire l'implementazione del Piano di partizione dell'Assemblea [Generale], e per ostacolare i suoi obiettivi tramite minacce e atti di violenza, incluse incursioni armate nel Territorio palestinese [Eretz Israel].

"Tentativi degli arabi palestinesi di 'far tornare indietro l'orologio' e resuscitare la Risoluzione 181 - la Soluzione 'originale' dei due Stati - 'come se non fosse successo nulla', sono uno stratagemma senza fondamento designato ad usare la Risoluzione quale leva per causare un gran prelievo di parti della Palestina israeliana occidentale e guadagnare una base più vasta da cui continuare ad attaccare Israele, con confini pure meno difendibili. Sia i palestinesi che i loro oppositori arabi nei Paesi vicini, hanno reso il Piano nullo e vano tramite il loro successivo comportamento aggressivo.

Sfortunatamente, la Comunità mondiale ha mancato di prospettare che l'esplosione di uno Stato palestinese, si sarebbe trasformata nel tipo di Stato canaglia e nella Casa di Organizzazioni rinnegate, con cui il Mondo è alle prese Oggi.Alla luce della Storia arabo palestinese di violenza, di incitamento contro gli ebrei, e di sua povera produzione, avente a che fare con libertà o autonomia limitate - come avere una 'mezza casa' - il risultato dell'esame di sua prontezza a raggiungere la famiglia delle Nazioni, è chiaro.Considerando il supporto (piuttosto che 'il fiato sul collo') di cui i palestinesi godono nell'arena internazionale, l'indipendenza della Palestina potrebbe trasformarsi in un vero incubo.

[1] United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, 29 gennaio 1948. Vedere: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10923.htm. (10923)
[2] Vedere fra altri, Security Council Resolution S/RES/ 54 (1948) su: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10894.htm. (10894)

Source: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/the-partition-plan-and-the-two-state-solution.html

Robert Spencer: Obama Busily Appeasing Jihadists

In Human Events today, I discuss the momentous first hundred days. And I expect that we ain't seen nothin' yet.

“To the Muslim world,” said Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address, “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” After 100 days, how’s that going?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up best, responding contemptuously to Obama’s offer to sit down to talk without preconditions and taunting Obama for his impotence: “We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength.”

Ahmadinejad is also turning Obama’s campaign promise against him. When Obama indicated that he wouldn’t impose preconditions on negotiations with Iran, the Iranian saw an opening. Now, he’s apparently demanding preconditions for the talks by pressuring Obama for concessions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Iran’s Thug-In-Chief spoke like an aggressor who has spotted an appeaser, and is determined to wring from him as many concessions as possible.

How has it come to this so quickly? Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seem to have made it a top priority of their administration’s opening act to weaken our position with the Islamic jihadists:

• They quietly dropped the term “war on terror.” Napolitano even went so far as to say that she preferred to refer not to acts of “terrorism” but to “man-caused disasters” (NOW had no recorded comment about her sexist language). Meanwhile, a DHS report on “right-wing extremists” had no trouble referring to veterans and conservatives of all kinds as potential “terrorists.” This suggested a disquieting will to silence and demonize the political opposition, all the while regarding the real terror threat with extraordinary myopia.
• Obama named Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy. Brooks is venomously anti-Israel and once wrote that al Qaeda was “little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs,” and that the Bush Administration had only imagined that it was a “vast global threat.”
• He has tapped Harold Koh to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Koh has said that he had no objection to Sharia’s being applied to “an appropriate case” in the United States.
• In a startling breach of protocol, Obama bowed deeply to the King of Saudi Arabia, implying an obeisance that isn’t going to free us from our dependence upon the oil sheikhs any time soon.
• While on a trip to Europe, he refused to visit the American Cemetery at Normandy, but made a point of visiting a mosque in Istanbul. He expressed, in an address to the Turkish Parliament, his “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world—including in my own country.” It’s unclear how he thinks Islam has shaped the U.S., other than to lead to innovations in airport security. His statement did nothing but embolden the jihadists who have dedicated their efforts to bringing Islamic law to the West.
• Obama said also that “the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam” -- indicating that he had no intention of addressing the ideological challenge that Islamic jihadists present to the West, or of acknowledging the fact that although the U.S. is not at war with Islam, many Muslims consider Islam to be at war with the U.S.
• Obama invited to the White House the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 56-nation body that has declared its intention to compel the United Nations to criminalize all criticism of Islam.
• He has declared his determination to open negotiations with “moderate elements” of the Taliban, despite the fact that no such people have ever been found.
• He has declared his determination to close Guantanamo, despite the fact that over 60 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the jihad.

All this and more in just 100 days.

The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. A diplomat will sell you and your nation for a price. An appeaser will give it away without getting anything in return.

Source: JihadWatch

Hamas and Fatah talk Palestinian unity in Egypt

John Lyons, Middle East correspondent | April 29

RIVAL Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah resumed talks in Cairo yesterday to negotiate a national unity government as hostilities between the two reached new lows.

The first of four sessions ended without a breakthrough on the key questions of security, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and elections, said senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath.

However, "the climate was positive", he said.

"The issues are complex and we are taking an open approach towards them," said Hamas's senior Gaza leader, Mahmud Zahar, confirming that talks would continue overnight.

"The dialogue is in its final phase," the state-run MENA news agency quoted a senior Egyptian official as saying.

"Egypt has put forward proposals to bring the two sides together ... and will listen to their responses."

A national unity government could then begin talks with Israel aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The meetings came two weeks after Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip, accused Fatah, responsible for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, of attempting to assassinate one of its leaders.

Egyptian officials have been trying since the end of the Gaza war in January to broker a peace deal. This is their third attempt and is seen by many observers as likely to be the last for some time if it fails.

The key points of difference appear to be Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist and renounce violence.

Another major difference involves the role of the Palestinian police and security officers - many security personnel in the West Bank are trained by Jordan or the US, which Hamas says is unacceptable.

The Cairo talks resumed as Israel's Foreign Ministry said recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was an essential condition for any resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

This followed comments last week by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that he did not see recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as a pre-condition for peace talks.

Israeli president Shimon Peres warned yesterday that if Israel was drawn into another war it "will always win".

"We do not want war, but if it is forced upon us ... we will always win. The fallen have left behind them a strong and assured country," he said.

Source: The Australian

Jordan sees new war if US does not act quickly

Apr 26

AMMAN, Jordan – Jordan's king urged President Barack Obama Sunday to take a more forceful role in the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, warning of a new Mideast war if there is no significant progress in the next 18 months.

Speaking to NBC's "Meet the Press," King Abdullah described the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as the core problem of the region and solving it would help the U.S. in dealing with Iran and combatting the appeal of radical Islamic groups like Al-Qaida.

"In the next 18 months, if we don't move the process forward, and bring people to the negotiation table, there will be another conflict between Israel and another protagonist," he said in the interview recorded in Washington on Friday.

"If it's left to the players, the Israelis and the Palestinians by themselves, we're not going to get anywhere — it can only happen if there is an American umbrella with a determined American president," he added.

Jordan is one of two Arab countries that have signed a peace treaty with Israel and is a strong U.S. ally in the region. The majority of the country's citizens are also of Palestinian origin, making it very interested in the ongoing peace talks.

Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, relaunched in late 2007, have made little visible progress — in part due to Palestinian infighting. The new Israeli government also has not endorsed the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

A Palestinian state alongside Israel is the centerpiece of U.S. peace efforts in the region.

The king also addressed the use of torture, acknowledging that he had heard in the press that it was being used by United States, but denying allegations that Jordan was involved.

Human Rights Watch, among other groups, has issued reports alleging that the Jordanian intelligence service brutally interrogated detainees on behalf of the CIA.

Instead, Abdullah said his intelligence services specialized in turning enemy agents and using them as informants.

"I think that we have been very smart in being intelligent (and) convincing operatives that we have come across to end up working for us — and you can't do that when it comes to torture," he said.

The king also noted that Obama had substantially improved the image of the United States in the region.

"America is providing a new image of how things should be done and I think the world has a belief in the president," he said.

Source: AP