"Is It Terrorism When Israel Does It?"

Ever since MSNBC ran that story linking the Mossad to the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pointing the finger at Israel for 'participating in terrorism' and wondering with elephantine illogic why the US should be continuing to give aid to 'a supporter of terrorism'. Usually coupled with complaints about this supposed double standard are some of the usual fairy tales about how Israel was started by 'terrorists' who operated against the British .

It's high time to demolish this horse manure.

What's going on between Iran and Israel is a war between two sovereign states, plain and simple. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that regime has been quite open about being in a state of war against Israel and seeking its destruction. For that matter, they feel the same way about the United States.

Along with targeting the US military in operations like the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and numerous operations either directly by Iran's military or its proxies against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians have also sponsored plenty of terrorism aimed explicitly against civilians and strictly civilian facilities, including sponsoring and training 'Palestinian' homicide bombers, attacking the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.

If the Israelis are involved - and there's no direct proof they are, although it's likely - they have concentrated specifically on military installations and figures associated with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, weapons they could very well use to commit genocide. Whomever is targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and these scientists isn't hitting schools, pizza parlors, restaurants, community centers or any other facilities designed for civilian use. And even if they were, the Iranian practice of locating these targets near civilian facilities amounts to the use of human shields, something totally contrary to the rules of war. And just like the 'Palestinians' and Hezbollah who use the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned it makes these civilian targets fair game in wartime even if they do happen to get hit as collateral damage in a strike on military targets.

The British and the US used exactly the same standards in WWII in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and are using the same standards in drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan. War by its nature affects civilians on each side.

The difference between Israel and its enemies like Iran is that Israel's record on going out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while targeting its enemies is uniquely good among western nations, while Iran and it's proxies are deliberately targeting civilians as a war aim - the very definition of terrorism.

That definition also applies to the way Israel's Jewish underground conducted itself while trying to push the British out of a country that was supposed have been the Jewish State by international law of long standing. The usual example cited is the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun.

There are certain facts always left out of these stories.

There was an unusually high percentage of Palestine's Jews - about one third of the entire population - in uniform fighting for the allies. In contrast, the Arabs were largely pro-Nazi and the 'Palestinian' Arab leader the British appointed, Grand Mufti Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an active enemy. Not only did he translate Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic and do a great deal to bring the Arabs over to the Nazi cause, he recruited Bosnian Muslims in Europe for Hitler's SS and collaborated with his friend Adolf Eichmann in planning a Nazi death camp for Palestine's Jews, scheduled to be situated near what is now Nablus.

In spite of all that, the British were firmly pro-Arab, to the point of being actively anti-Semitic. They halted all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus dooming millions to death at the hands of the Nazis because few other countries were wiling to take them in, including Britain. At the same time, they allowed unlimited and unrestricted Arab in-migration, especially during the war because so many Jews were in uniform that there was an actual labor shortage in Palestine. This led to atrocities like the sinking of the refugee ship SS Struma in 1942, which was towed by Turkish authorities to the middle of the Black Sea and left there to founder with a disabled engine after the British refused to admit its refugee passengers to Palestine. 768 people were drowned, including more than one hundred children.

In 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed, the British were still turning away every Jewish refugee they could apprehend. Aside from operating what amounted to concentration camps of their own on the nearby Island of Cyprus, the British also sent a number of refugees by ship back to some of the very camps they'd just been liberated from.

The British also did little to quell Arab violence against Jews, while at the same time taking active steps to disarm Jews attempting to defend themselves.

The King David Hotel was Britain's military headquarters and the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine. The southern wing of the hotel where the attack was concentrated also housed British Intelligence, including files used against the Jewish resistance groups.

Aside from the fact this was definitely a military target, it's a matter of historical record that several phone calls were made to the British a half hour before warning them of the imminent bombing by the Irgun which is a funny way for 'terrorists' to act. The phone calls were dismissed by the British as hoaxes and no evacuation was done, with the result that 91 people, some of them civilian employees of the Mandatory government were killed.

In view of what goes by nowadays without being labeled terrorism, labeling the Irgun's act against the King David Hotel with the 'T' word is obviously a sign of an extremely obvious agenda.

"Is It Terrorism When Israel Does It?"

Ever since MSNBC ran that story linking the Mossad to the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork, pointing the finger at Israel for 'participating in terrorism' and wondering with elephantine illogic why the US should be continuing to give aid to 'a supporter of terrorism'. Usually coupled with complaints about this supposed double standard are some of the usual fairy tales about how Israel was started by 'terrorists' who operated against the British .

It's high time to demolish this horse manure.

What's going on between Iran and Israel is a war between two sovereign states, plain and simple. Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that regime has been quite open about being in a state of war against Israel and seeking its destruction. For that matter, they feel the same way about the United States.

Along with targeting the US military in operations like the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and numerous operations either directly by Iran's military or its proxies against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranians have also sponsored plenty of terrorism aimed explicitly against civilians and strictly civilian facilities, including sponsoring and training 'Palestinian' homicide bombers, attacking the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.

If the Israelis are involved - and there's no direct proof they are, although it's likely - they have concentrated specifically on military installations and figures associated with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, weapons they could very well use to commit genocide. Whomever is targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and these scientists isn't hitting schools, pizza parlors, restaurants, community centers or any other facilities designed for civilian use. And even if they were, the Iranian practice of locating these targets near civilian facilities amounts to the use of human shields, something totally contrary to the rules of war. And just like the 'Palestinians' and Hezbollah who use the same tactics, as far as I'm concerned it makes these civilian targets fair game in wartime even if they do happen to get hit as collateral damage in a strike on military targets.

The British and the US used exactly the same standards in WWII in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and are using the same standards in drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan. War by its nature affects civilians on each side.

The difference between Israel and its enemies like Iran is that Israel's record on going out of its way to minimize civilian casualties while targeting its enemies is uniquely good among western nations, while Iran and it's proxies are deliberately targeting civilians as a war aim - the very definition of terrorism.

That definition also applies to the way Israel's Jewish underground conducted itself while trying to push the British out of a country that was supposed have been the Jewish State by international law of long standing. The usual example cited is the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun.

There are certain facts always left out of these stories.

There was an unusually high percentage of Palestine's Jews - about one third of the entire population - in uniform fighting for the allies. In contrast, the Arabs were largely pro-Nazi and the 'Palestinian' Arab leader the British appointed, Grand Mufti Haj-Amin al-Husseini was an active enemy. Not only did he translate Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic and do a great deal to bring the Arabs over to the Nazi cause, he recruited Bosnian Muslims in Europe for Hitler's SS and collaborated with his friend Adolf Eichmann in planning a Nazi death camp for Palestine's Jews, scheduled to be situated near what is now Nablus.

In spite of all that, the British were firmly pro-Arab, to the point of being actively anti-Semitic. They halted all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus dooming millions to death at the hands of the Nazis because few other countries were wiling to take them in, including Britain. At the same time, they allowed unlimited and unrestricted Arab in-migration, especially during the war because so many Jews were in uniform that there was an actual labor shortage in Palestine. This led to atrocities like the sinking of the refugee ship SS Struma in 1942, which was towed by Turkish authorities to the middle of the Black Sea and left there to founder with a disabled engine after the British refused to admit its refugee passengers to Palestine. 768 people were drowned, including more than one hundred children.

In 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed, the British were still turning away every Jewish refugee they could apprehend. Aside from operating what amounted to concentration camps of their own on the nearby Island of Cyprus, the British also sent a number of refugees by ship back to some of the very camps they'd just been liberated from.

The British also did little to quell Arab violence against Jews, while at the same time taking active steps to disarm Jews attempting to defend themselves.

The King David Hotel was Britain's military headquarters and the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine. The southern wing of the hotel where the attack was concentrated also housed British Intelligence, including files used against the Jewish resistance groups.

Aside from the fact this was definitely a military target, it's a matter of historical record that several phone calls were made to the British a half hour before warning them of the imminent bombing by the Irgun which is a funny way for 'terrorists' to act. The phone calls were dismissed by the British as hoaxes and no evacuation was done, with the result that 91 people, some of them civilian employees of the Mandatory government were killed.

In view of what goes by nowadays without being labeled terrorism, labeling the Irgun's act against the King David Hotel with the 'T' word is obviously a sign of an extremely obvious agenda.

Israel And 'Palestine' - An End To An Error

As I predicted, the talks about talks in Amman between Israel and the PLO came to nothing, simply because there's nothing to negotiate...the 'Palestinians' are unwilling to do anything unless the Israelis agree to all their demands in advance. While Mahmoud Abbas played good cop and talked about seizing opportunities for peace, Fatah's negotiator Saeb Erekat made it very plain that the Amman talks were a mere formality and not a return to negotiations, saying, "Netanyahu needs to freeze the construction of settlements and accept the '67 outline for a two-state solution before we return to the negotiations table."

So the 'Palestinians' are continuing with their plans to get what they want by other means than negotiations. And they have a full agenda planned this year in their campaign against Israel.

While their efforts to unilaterally abrogate both Oslo and the Roadmap by having the UN declare 'Palestine' a state on the pre '67 lines and bypass any negotiations or concessions to Israel ultimately fell short last year, they plan to continue their efforts in 2012.

As of January 1st of this year, several countries that would have voted against the Palestinians or been swayed by a US threat of a veto rotated off the UN Security Council as their terms expired and were replaced by Guatemala, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Morocco and Togo. At least four of those countries will vote in favor of admitting 'Palestine' as a full member with its borders on the pre '67 lines.

And a US veto against it by the Obama Administration is unlikely if the vote occurs after the November 2012 American presidential elections, regardless of whether President Obama is re-elected or not. Israel, just as a side note, is the only UN member officially prohibited from serving on the UN Security Council as a rotating member.

The 'Palestinians thus hope to have their demands for borders based on the pre '67 lines and half of Jerusalem backed up by a UNSC resolution for the first time.

And that's not all. The 'Palestinians' are planning international efforts to turn Israel into the world's pariah state.

Senior Fatah official Nabil Sha’ath, formerly the left fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue recently said on Palestinian radio that 2012 “will be the start of an unprecedented diplomatic campaign on the part of the Palestinian leadership, and it will be a year of pressure on Israel that will put it under a real international siege. The campaign will be similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa.”

The PLO thus plans to hit Israel from two directions. According to my sources, while Abbas and Fatah will concentrate on gathering support at the UN, eliciting international boycotts and orchestrating violent riots and protests in Judea and Samaria. Hamas will take on the task of a new wave of rocket attacks and terrorism directed at Israel's populace, thus giving Fatah plausible deniability. Besides, Abbas and the Fatah Old Guard are already on the way out with the money they stole, and they know full well that Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are almost certainly going to take over all of the 'Palestinian' territories in fairly short order. So does Hamas.

It's a pretty straight forward strategy. If Israel actually were to go back to the pre '67 lines, the country would become indefensible with avowed enemies in control of the high ground in Judea and Samaria as well as an enclave right next door in Jerusalem. If the Israelis refuse to commit national suicide by doing so, they become a pariah nation in defiance of the UN and 'international law'. This is exactly why the two state solution envisioned by Oslo was always a myth..or more exactly, as Arafat's old political commissar in Jerusalem Faisal Husseini famously put it, "a Trojan Horse designed to trick the Jews."

There are definite ways for the Israelis to head this off and frustrate it.

At this point, I doubt that Israel talking about consequences for the PLO for this behavior really means much to Abbas and company. Since for the most part they're on their way out anyway there's no particular reason they should pay anymore than lip service to the well being of their people at this point than they have since the 1970's. And the truth of the matter is, the 'Palestinians' have never really suffered much in the way of real consequences for bad behavior, either from Israel or from their western donors. There isn't any reason for them to fear consequences now.

With that in mind, from a strategic viewpoint the best thing Israel could do would be to publicly offer the 'Palestinians' a final settlement that involves recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, takes the so-called right of return, Jerusalem and Area C, the part of Judea and Samaria under Israeli sovereignty off the table, offers a division on Area B that maintains an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and cedes Area C, which Fatah already controls, to the 'Palestinians'.

Abbas and the PLO would certainly reject this out of hand. As Abbas has said many times, he's not prepared to make even a single concession on 'Palestinian' demands.

Once the 'Palestinian' refusal is made public, I recommend that Israel do what I've been suggesting for literally years - call the 'Palestinian's' bluff by simply unilaterally imposing their proposition on the ground, annexing the areas in question and declaring all agreements null and void.

At the same time, the Israelis should announce an end to any contact with the 'Palestinians' based on prior agreements. No more free electricity and water, no more tax rebates, no more security cooperation, no more trade concessions, nothing. Any new agreements in these areas would need to be negotiated from scratch.

The Israelis would simply be formalizing something that's evident to any objective observer. The 'peace process' is over, if indeed it ever really existed.

The Israelis would need to accompany these declarations with certain concrete actions to underline their seriousness about this.

They would need to be prepared to repatriate any Israeli citizens now living in 'Palestine' back to Israeli territory, while at the same time repatriating all non-Israeli citizens of 'Palestinian' origin to the new, second Arab 'Palestinian' state.

Second, Israel also would need to publicly inform the 'Palestinians' and the world that any protests or violence directed at these areas or sovereign Israeli territory would be considered an act of war by a hostile entity and dealt with accordingly.

And third, the Israelis would need to arm the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria appropriately and fortify any Jewish communities that need it to resist attacks and hold out until the IDF gets there.

There would undoubtedly be consequences for Israel from these actions, but the upside overwhelms them.

For the first couple of weeks, the usual suspects would go absolutely insane. Elements of the media that are consistently anti-Israel like NPR, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Guardian would run the sort of stories and commentary you would expect, but the news cycle moves on, and honestly, their coverage of the Middle East conflict has not been objective for years anyway.

The UN General Assembly might pass a motion or three condemning Israel - again, nothing new. It's highly doubtful the Security Council would and even if they did it would be unlikely to have much practical effect.

Elements of the EU would undoubtedly condemn the Israeli actions, but again with limited effect. Aside from the fact that the continued existence of the EU itself is in doubt, the EU countries have a healthy appetite for Israeli agricultural and high tech products, and a trade boycott gets even less likely when you consider that the Europeans are unlikely to alienate an up and coming major source of gas and oil capable of providing an alternative to dealing with the Russians. Again, the likely impact is a certain amount of rhetoric for awhile, followed by business as usual.

The same would likely be true of Australia, Canada, and the United States, even with a hostile Obama Administration in office.

Israel's relationships in the Middle East might likely undergo one major change, the severing of diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists whom now control Egypt are already talking openly about abrogating the treaty with the hated Jews anyway, the Israeli embassy in Cairo was recently sacked by a mob while Egyptian police looked on and even during the Mubarak regime outright anti-semitism was openly promulgated by the government controlled media as a tool of policy. There isn't much of a relationship to lose there.

The same is true of Jordan, a country where almost 80% of the population identifies themselves as 'Palestinians'. There is little if any trade, tourism or cultural exchanges with Israel and as the Muslim Brotherhood gets stronger there's a real likelihood of Jordan cancelling its treaties with Israel no matter what Israel does.

Neither country can afford the financial or social costs of a war with Israel, something that's also true of all of Israel's traditional Arab antagonists. And they're especially unlikely to go to war for 'Palestine'. Hamas and Hezbollah will remain hostile to Israel no matter what Israel does or doesn't do, but both have sufficient reasons for avoiding overt war Hamas because of it's relationship with the new Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt and Hezbollah because they have no desire to experience the kind of political fallout they got from their host country after the 2006 war...especially with Syria otherwise occupied.

The major upside for Israel, of course, is that while unilaterally staking out its borders and declaring an end to the Oslo Era won't put an end to the effort to delegitimize and destroy the country, it will put it on life support. Without the possibility that the Jews could be tricked into further strategic concessions existing, there's about as much energy expended in trying to get Jerusalem away from Israel as there is in trying to get Texas away from America. And it will decrease even more with time.

Oddly enough, there's also the possibility of an upside for the 'Palestinians' , believe it or not. After the initial shock and anger, they're going to be faced with two choices. Since the old dream of replacing Israel and driving the Jews into the Sea would no longer be a possibility, they can choose to either succumb to a preoccupation with revanchist dreams or they can look at the reality of having a country of their own to build and a destiny of their own to carve out. The first is far more likely, but only the second would lead to any kind of real future for themselves and their children, and there's just the chance they might finally realize it.

Israel And 'Palestine' - An End To An Error

As I predicted, the talks about talks in Amman between Israel and the PLO came to nothing, simply because there's nothing to negotiate...the 'Palestinians' are unwilling to do anything unless the Israelis agree to all their demands in advance. While Mahmoud Abbas played good cop and talked about seizing opportunities for peace, Fatah's negotiator Saeb Erekat made it very plain that the Amman talks were a mere formality and not a return to negotiations, saying, "Netanyahu needs to freeze the construction of settlements and accept the '67 outline for a two-state solution before we return to the negotiations table."

So the 'Palestinians' are continuing with their plans to get what they want by other means than negotiations. And they have a full agenda planned this year in their campaign against Israel.

While their efforts to unilaterally abrogate both Oslo and the Roadmap by having the UN declare 'Palestine' a state on the pre '67 lines and bypass any negotiations or concessions to Israel ultimately fell short last year, they plan to continue their efforts in 2012.

As of January 1st of this year, several countries that would have voted against the Palestinians or been swayed by a US threat of a veto rotated off the UN Security Council as their terms expired and were replaced by Guatemala, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Morocco and Togo. At least four of those countries will vote in favor of admitting 'Palestine' as a full member with its borders on the pre '67 lines.

And a US veto against it by the Obama Administration is unlikely if the vote occurs after the November 2012 American presidential elections, regardless of whether President Obama is re-elected or not. Israel, just as a side note, is the only UN member officially prohibited from serving on the UN Security Council as a rotating member.

The 'Palestinians thus hope to have their demands for borders based on the pre '67 lines and half of Jerusalem backed up by a UNSC resolution for the first time.

And that's not all. The 'Palestinians' are planning international efforts to turn Israel into the world's pariah state.

Senior Fatah official Nabil Sha’ath, formerly the left fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue recently said on Palestinian radio that 2012 “will be the start of an unprecedented diplomatic campaign on the part of the Palestinian leadership, and it will be a year of pressure on Israel that will put it under a real international siege. The campaign will be similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa.”

The PLO thus plans to hit Israel from two directions. According to my sources, while Abbas and Fatah will concentrate on gathering support at the UN, eliciting international boycotts and orchestrating violent riots and protests in Judea and Samaria. Hamas will take on the task of a new wave of rocket attacks and terrorism directed at Israel's populace, thus giving Fatah plausible deniability. Besides, Abbas and the Fatah Old Guard are already on the way out with the money they stole, and they know full well that Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are almost certainly going to take over all of the 'Palestinian' territories in fairly short order. So does Hamas.

It's a pretty straight forward strategy. If Israel actually were to go back to the pre '67 lines, the country would become indefensible with avowed enemies in control of the high ground in Judea and Samaria as well as an enclave right next door in Jerusalem. If the Israelis refuse to commit national suicide by doing so, they become a pariah nation in defiance of the UN and 'international law'. This is exactly why the two state solution envisioned by Oslo was always a myth..or more exactly, as Arafat's old political commissar in Jerusalem Faisal Husseini famously put it, "a Trojan Horse designed to trick the Jews."

There are definite ways for the Israelis to head this off and frustrate it.

At this point, I doubt that Israel talking about consequences for the PLO for this behavior really means much to Abbas and company. Since for the most part they're on their way out anyway there's no particular reason they should pay anymore than lip service to the well being of their people at this point than they have since the 1970's. And the truth of the matter is, the 'Palestinians' have never really suffered much in the way of real consequences for bad behavior, either from Israel or from their western donors. There isn't any reason for them to fear consequences now.

With that in mind, from a strategic viewpoint the best thing Israel could do would be to publicly offer the 'Palestinians' a final settlement that involves recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, takes the so-called right of return, Jerusalem and Area C, the part of Judea and Samaria under Israeli sovereignty off the table, offers a division on Area B that maintains an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and cedes Area C, which Fatah already controls, to the 'Palestinians'.

Abbas and the PLO would certainly reject this out of hand. As Abbas has said many times, he's not prepared to make even a single concession on 'Palestinian' demands.

Once the 'Palestinian' refusal is made public, I recommend that Israel do what I've been suggesting for literally years - call the 'Palestinian's' bluff by simply unilaterally imposing their proposition on the ground, annexing the areas in question and declaring all agreements null and void.

At the same time, the Israelis should announce an end to any contact with the 'Palestinians' based on prior agreements. No more free electricity and water, no more tax rebates, no more security cooperation, no more trade concessions, nothing. Any new agreements in these areas would need to be negotiated from scratch.

The Israelis would simply be formalizing something that's evident to any objective observer. The 'peace process' is over, if indeed it ever really existed.

The Israelis would need to accompany these declarations with certain concrete actions to underline their seriousness about this.

They would need to be prepared to repatriate any Israeli citizens now living in 'Palestine' back to Israeli territory, while at the same time repatriating all non-Israeli citizens of 'Palestinian' origin to the new, second Arab 'Palestinian' state.

Second, Israel also would need to publicly inform the 'Palestinians' and the world that any protests or violence directed at these areas or sovereign Israeli territory would be considered an act of war by a hostile entity and dealt with accordingly.

And third, the Israelis would need to arm the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria appropriately and fortify any Jewish communities that need it to resist attacks and hold out until the IDF gets there.

There would undoubtedly be consequences for Israel from these actions, but the upside overwhelms them.

For the first couple of weeks, the usual suspects would go absolutely insane. Elements of the media that are consistently anti-Israel like NPR, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Guardian would run the sort of stories and commentary you would expect, but the news cycle moves on, and honestly, their coverage of the Middle East conflict has not been objective for years anyway.

The UN General Assembly might pass a motion or three condemning Israel - again, nothing new. It's highly doubtful the Security Council would and even if they did it would be unlikely to have much practical effect.

Elements of the EU would undoubtedly condemn the Israeli actions, but again with limited effect. Aside from the fact that the continued existence of the EU itself is in doubt, the EU countries have a healthy appetite for Israeli agricultural and high tech products, and a trade boycott gets even less likely when you consider that the Europeans are unlikely to alienate an up and coming major source of gas and oil capable of providing an alternative to dealing with the Russians. Again, the likely impact is a certain amount of rhetoric for awhile, followed by business as usual.

The same would likely be true of Australia, Canada, and the United States, even with a hostile Obama Administration in office.

Israel's relationships in the Middle East might likely undergo one major change, the severing of diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists whom now control Egypt are already talking openly about abrogating the treaty with the hated Jews anyway, the Israeli embassy in Cairo was recently sacked by a mob while Egyptian police looked on and even during the Mubarak regime outright anti-semitism was openly promulgated by the government controlled media as a tool of policy. There isn't much of a relationship to lose there.

The same is true of Jordan, a country where almost 80% of the population identifies themselves as 'Palestinians'. There is little if any trade, tourism or cultural exchanges with Israel and as the Muslim Brotherhood gets stronger there's a real likelihood of Jordan cancelling its treaties with Israel no matter what Israel does.

Neither country can afford the financial or social costs of a war with Israel, something that's also true of all of Israel's traditional Arab antagonists. And they're especially unlikely to go to war for 'Palestine'. Hamas and Hezbollah will remain hostile to Israel no matter what Israel does or doesn't do, but both have sufficient reasons for avoiding overt war Hamas because of it's relationship with the new Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt and Hezbollah because they have no desire to experience the kind of political fallout they got from their host country after the 2006 war...especially with Syria otherwise occupied.

The major upside for Israel, of course, is that while unilaterally staking out its borders and declaring an end to the Oslo Era won't put an end to the effort to delegitimize and destroy the country, it will put it on life support. Without the possibility that the Jews could be tricked into further strategic concessions existing, there's about as much energy expended in trying to get Jerusalem away from Israel as there is in trying to get Texas away from America. And it will decrease even more with time.

Oddly enough, there's also the possibility of an upside for the 'Palestinians' , believe it or not. After the initial shock and anger, they're going to be faced with two choices. Since the old dream of replacing Israel and driving the Jews into the Sea would no longer be a possibility, they can choose to either succumb to a preoccupation with revanchist dreams or they can look at the reality of having a country of their own to build and a destiny of their own to carve out. The first is far more likely, but only the second would lead to any kind of real future for themselves and their children, and there's just the chance they might finally realize it.

Proud 'Palestinians' Mahmoud Abbas And Most Of The Fatah Leadership Are Jordanian Citizens!

Some people in the past have criticized me because I continue to consider the 'Palestinians' a made up nationality and insist that Jordan is the actual Arab 'Palestinian' state.

They're not taking into account that Jordan as 'Palestine' was the intention of the British partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as codified in international law by the San Remo Agreement.The majority of Jordan's population then were 'Palestinian' - Quraysh Arabs, who were town dwellers as opposed to the Bedouin, who were desert dwellers. 80% of the Palestine Mandate was given to Abdullah, the present King's grandfather who established a minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy over the 'Palestinians' that continues to this day. Presently, even given the inevitable intermarriage, the split is roughly 75% 'Palestinian' and about 25% Bedouin, with many of the Bedouin Hashemite loyalists installed in key positions in government and the army.

Moreover, in 1967 when Israel took over Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) after Jordan attacked them, every Arab there was a Jordanian citizen and remained one according to Jordan's own laws until the mid 1990's.

The laws were changed because the minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy has always feared that someday the majority of non-Bedouins would try to take over. That almost happened once before during 'Black September' back in 1970 when Yasser Arafat tried to take over the country and the Jordanian Arab Legion killed and expelled thousands of 'Palestinians'.

As I've reported before, the Bedouin minority has upped the ante on 'de-Palestinizing' Jordan by arbitrarily taking away Jordanian citizenship from thousands of people who identify themselves as 'Palestinians' and have held Jordanian citizenship for decades.

Ah, but that's for the little people.

After Mahmoud Abbas' little screed at the UN, some people applauded what they saw as his brave championship of 'Palestinian' nationhood. Who would have imagined that Mahmoud Abbas and most of the Fatah leadership have applied for and been granted Jordanian citizenship for themselves and their families? You see, according to the October 9th 2011 Jerusalem Post reporting on an article in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders and their families are now full Jordanian citizens:

Atef Tarawneh, deputy speaker of the Jordanian parliament, denounced the decision to revoke the citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Tarawneh said that the decision was “harmful” to national unity and the constitution in Jordan.

He added that he recently met with King Abdullah II and warned him against the repercussions of revoking the citizenships. He said that the decision has harmed investment in the kingdom because dozens of Jordanian-Palestinian businessmen living abroad were afraid to return home out of fear that the authorities would confiscate their passports.

According to the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders are registered as full Jordanian citizens.

The paper pointed out that the leaders applied for Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were urging the Jordanian authorities to stop giving Palestinians Jordanian citizenship, in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.” The Jordanian government had justified its decision to strip Palestinians of their citizenship by using the same argument.

However, the Jordanians have long seen the Palestinian majority in the kingdom as a demographic threat.

The decision to rescind the citizenship of tens of thousands of Palestinians is seen in the context of this fear.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi quoted sources in Amman as saying that Abbas and his entire family carry Jordanian passports.

Other PA leaders who carry Jordanian passports include former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh and Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan.

The paper did not say when the Palestinian officials were given Jordanian citizenship. PA spokesmen in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.

A Fatah official, however, said that he was not surprised to hear that Palestinian leaders were carrying Jordanian passports. He said he believed most of the PA leaders had applied for and received Jordanian passports in the past 15 years.

Tarawneh, by the way is of 'Palestinian' origin.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi also reported that it was the PA leaders who had asked for Jordanian citizenship, and not the Jordanians who had offered it.

Who would have ever guessed that I and the Fatah leadership would agree on something? Jordan is the 'Palestinian' state and the nonsense going on at the UN is simply an attempted land grab by the 'Palestinians' in an attempt to complete St. Arafat's mission of pushing the Jews into the sea bit by bit and grab a more strategic location to launch the final jihad.

(h/t Carl)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Proud 'Palestinians' Mahmoud Abbas And Most Of The Fatah Leadership Are Jordanian Citizens!

Some people in the past have criticized me because I continue to consider the 'Palestinians' a made up nationality and insist that Jordan is the actual Arab 'Palestinian' state.

They're not taking into account that Jordan as 'Palestine' was the intention of the British partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as codified in international law by the San Remo Agreement.The majority of Jordan's population then were 'Palestinian' - Quraysh Arabs, who were town dwellers as opposed to the Bedouin, who were desert dwellers. 80% of the Palestine Mandate was given to Abdullah, the present King's grandfather who established a minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy over the 'Palestinians' that continues to this day. Presently, even given the inevitable intermarriage, the split is roughly 75% 'Palestinian' and about 25% Bedouin, with many of the Bedouin Hashemite loyalists installed in key positions in government and the army.

Moreover, in 1967 when Israel took over Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) after Jordan attacked them, every Arab there was a Jordanian citizen and remained one according to Jordan's own laws until the mid 1990's.

The laws were changed because the minority Bedouin Hashemite monarchy has always feared that someday the majority of non-Bedouins would try to take over. That almost happened once before during 'Black September' back in 1970 when Yasser Arafat tried to take over the country and the Jordanian Arab Legion killed and expelled thousands of 'Palestinians'.

As I've reported before, the Bedouin minority has upped the ante on 'de-Palestinizing' Jordan by arbitrarily taking away Jordanian citizenship from thousands of people who identify themselves as 'Palestinians' and have held Jordanian citizenship for decades.

Ah, but that's for the little people.

After Mahmoud Abbas' little screed at the UN, some people applauded what they saw as his brave championship of 'Palestinian' nationhood. Who would have imagined that Mahmoud Abbas and most of the Fatah leadership have applied for and been granted Jordanian citizenship for themselves and their families? You see, according to the October 9th 2011 Jerusalem Post reporting on an article in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders and their families are now full Jordanian citizens:

Atef Tarawneh, deputy speaker of the Jordanian parliament, denounced the decision to revoke the citizenship of thousands of Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Tarawneh said that the decision was “harmful” to national unity and the constitution in Jordan.

He added that he recently met with King Abdullah II and warned him against the repercussions of revoking the citizenships. He said that the decision has harmed investment in the kingdom because dozens of Jordanian-Palestinian businessmen living abroad were afraid to return home out of fear that the authorities would confiscate their passports.

According to the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders are registered as full Jordanian citizens.

The paper pointed out that the leaders applied for Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were urging the Jordanian authorities to stop giving Palestinians Jordanian citizenship, in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.” The Jordanian government had justified its decision to strip Palestinians of their citizenship by using the same argument.

However, the Jordanians have long seen the Palestinian majority in the kingdom as a demographic threat.

The decision to rescind the citizenship of tens of thousands of Palestinians is seen in the context of this fear.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi quoted sources in Amman as saying that Abbas and his entire family carry Jordanian passports.

Other PA leaders who carry Jordanian passports include former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh and Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan.

The paper did not say when the Palestinian officials were given Jordanian citizenship. PA spokesmen in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.

A Fatah official, however, said that he was not surprised to hear that Palestinian leaders were carrying Jordanian passports. He said he believed most of the PA leaders had applied for and received Jordanian passports in the past 15 years.

Tarawneh, by the way is of 'Palestinian' origin.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi also reported that it was the PA leaders who had asked for Jordanian citizenship, and not the Jordanians who had offered it.

Who would have ever guessed that I and the Fatah leadership would agree on something? Jordan is the 'Palestinian' state and the nonsense going on at the UN is simply an attempted land grab by the 'Palestinians' in an attempt to complete St. Arafat's mission of pushing the Jews into the sea bit by bit and grab a more strategic location to launch the final jihad.

(h/t Carl)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!