Fitzgerald: Bush, a "Palestinian" state, and "Palestinian" propaganda

Bush should just get this over with by carpet bombing Israel from end to end. This will accomplish two things:1)Getting rid of a lot of Jews and 2)Giving Bush the legacy he obviously craves-albeit from Islamaniacs and their fellow travelers for bringing about the birth of another glorious nation for the ummah.

I can't believe somebody in his position is THIS stupid regarding this matter-it's practically criminal.

Who was it who asked, "How did President Bush make all those c's at Yale"? Maybe he did it the old fashioned way: he earned them.

Statement by Ahmed Shuqeiri, to the UN Security Council in 1949
It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.

http://www.afsi.org/MEDIA/newsLinks/shockers/m100.htm

To bad that knowledge isn’t common anymore.

A "Palestinian" state is not "viable." It has no natural resources and no human resources.

It will interesting to compare the Gaza Strip's development over the next twenty years with that of pre-1997 Hong Kong, another tiny area with no natural resources and with a population density probably as high as that of Gaza. Obviously the "human resources" variable is going to make all the difference. The Chinese in Hong Kong had the benefit of British Common Law and the "overseas Chinese" culture of industriousness and were able to turn their small piece of rock into a thriving city-state. The Japanese and Taiwanese both did the same on their islands which also lacked natural resources. Again, the cultural factor at work.

Dear Hugh,

almost no one, including the very intelligent, know much or anything about that.

Please allow me to put the ball in your court once more.

Atheists willing to do research into the cadastral (land ownership) records, and the demographic records, of that dusty part of the Ottoman Empire that,

I am one such Atheist, and I would like to learn more. Could you give a reading list, or just place to start, for someone who wants to know a little about this subject, and get his facts straight?

yours Sincerely,

Fanusi Khiyal

A "Palestinian" state is not "viable." It has no natural resources and no human resources.

It will interesting to compare the Gaza Strip's development over the next twenty years with that of pre-1997 Hong Kong, another tiny area with no natural resources and with a population density probably as high as that of Gaza. Obviously the "human resources" variable is going to make all the difference. The Chinese in Hong Kong had the benefit of British Common Law and the "overseas Chinese" culture of industriousness and were able to turn their small piece of rock into a thriving city-state. The Japanese and Taiwanese both did the same on their islands which also lacked natural resources. Again, the cultural factor at work.

Bush's two state solution is nothing more than the continuation of Hitler's final solution for the Jewish problem as it squeezes Israel into indefensible borders.
Bush's way is a bit slower than Iran's Anadinejad ,but the end result is the same.
No Israel ,no problem so these evil men think.

It encourages Israel's enemies that terrorism really does work and it emboldens Israel's Arab neighbors to finish what they cound not do in five wars.
The wolf Bush dressed as a sheep leads the pack of wolves to devour Israel.
Exterminating Israel is his way of solving the problem of no peace in what was once dar al ISLAM befor the infidel Jews got there.
May Herr Bush rot in hell and soon !

There is specific historic knowledge and moral sense on both sides of this issue. A workable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not be as simple as "Give the Palestinians nothing."

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published Thursday that creation of a Palestinian state is a vital Israeli interest, and that failure to reach a peace agreement could plunge Israel into a South African-style apartheid struggle.

Such a scenario, he said, would mean 'the state of Israel is finished.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/world/main3552151.shtml

How can yet another failed, terrorist state be a benefit to the United States?

Okay, one more time.

Palestine; The name comes from the Roman Empire renaming the province of Judea after the Jewish uprisings of the first century to insult them, (also when the Second Temple of the Mound was destroyed, how Mohammed saw it in his “night flight” is extremely strange). The Mohammedan hadn’t even arrived on the scene until the seventh century. And they were Mohammedan first, and Arabs second, not “Palestinians”. When they had arrived they were part of the conquering Ummah of the Caliphate, not some renamed Byzantine Province. And when the Ottoman Empire took over the seat of the Caliphate. There still wasn’t a single “Palestinian” person. The whole Palestine issue was raised when the “Evil Jooos” declared independence and ended their Dhimmitude and the Jiyaz tax (the Mohammedan welfare system, make the kafur pay for your bread).

Okay we got that now... it's nothing more then one group Arabs from Arabia demanding their own temporal feifdom (since they are waiting for a chance at their 72 sex slaves) with Dhimmis/serfs returned to them so they can rule over.

1) Just thought I should mention I'm one of the atheists in the pro-Israel foxhole.

2) Palestinian state without human resources? I thought it maybe had too many human resources. Actually, I have heard that "diaspora" Palestinians -- those who've managed to get to other Arab states -- are disliked as moneygrubbing gogetters who make the native population look bad (just like diaspora Chinese, diaspora Indians, and diaspora Jews). I wonder why they don't show such talents at home?

There is no question in my mind that could it develop a friendly relationship with Israel, allowing for unchecked traffic both ways, Palestine could be a singularly prosperous Arab state once we find an energy alternative to petroleum and all the rest of the region is reduced to African-level poverty.

I am extremely disappointed in George Bush.

OT;
I wanted to post this

How Modern Liberals Think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

I think it's worth a bit of time.

Gaza has BILLIONS of dollars in very desirable natural gas just offshore. No way to get it with a terrorist state that can't provide the most rudimentary services to its own population.

Islam only recognizes the sovereign existence of a global Islamic state known as the 'umma'; Islam confers legitimacy to no other sovereign entity (not even a "Palestinian" state, which is not a worldwide Islamic state). This will not change.

Islam also confers no legitimacy whatsoever upon acts of good will bestowed upon Muslims by non-Muslims; the "unbelieving" non-Muslim is wasting his time with profound foolishness bothering to do such a thing (the devout Muslim will kill the "unbeliever," gestures of good will or no gestures of good will). This will not change either.

It is therefore very troubling to see this woefully misguided administration attempting and attempting (while spending what amounts to undoubtedly billions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars) to give the Muslim world something it says it wants (but really does NOT want):a sovereign state for the Palestinian Arabs whose birth is being overseen by the "infidel" USA.

Bush needs to understand that this effort to establish a "Palestinian" sovereign state for the "Palestinians" is a boondoggle of gargantuan proportions besides its being stillborn.

(also when the Second Temple of the Mound was destroyed, how Mohammed saw it in his “night flight” is extremely strange).

Not that strange. Clearly Muhammad was a time traveler as well. Gabriel not only took him hundreds of miles away from his tent, he also took him seven centuries back in time. Muhammad just forgot to mention that part to his followers.

""Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published Thursday that creation of a Palestinian state is a vital Israeli interest, and that failure to reach a peace agreement could plunge Israel into a South African-style apartheid struggle.
Such a scenario, he said, would mean 'the state of Israel is finished.'"

What else would you expect from a Quisling Puppet & corrupt politician extradionaire being led about by the Emperor,King George who will have his vision ,dream of his Palestinian state no matter what ?

Thank you for this brilliant piece, Hugh. Yes, you are right. Personally, my religious beliefs are a weird mix of liberal Christianity ( I like Jesus a lot, but not a whole lot else), paganism, and agnosticism, which may not make sense to anyone else, but is my right in a country that practices Freedom of Conscience. Politically, I'm liberal on pretty much everything besides gun control and a little thing called jihad.

I'm anti-jihad BECAUSE of those beliefs, not in spite of them. I have gay friends. I respect women. I like Jews. I like music. That is enough. It is all I need to know that Islam is not my friend. We are not all "holy rollers" waiting for a "Zionist apocalypse" on the "rebuilding of the temple". But I stand by Israel because it is the Gates of Thermopylae. If it goes, WE go. That is all that needs to be known or said.

This claiming of Jerusalem by Arabs goes back to the time of Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.

Nehemiah 2:19-20

19 But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official, and Geshem the Arab heard of it, they laughed at us and despised us, and said, "What is this thing that you are doing? Will you rebel against the king?" 20 So I answered them, and said to them, "The God of heaven Himself will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no heritage or right or memorial in Jerusalem."

Hugh, I appreciate your historical perspective. Knowing modern (19th and 20th century) history of Palestine is very important.

That having been said, Islam justifies the jihad against Israel, the Jews, Christians and the west based upon religious principles.

Those Christians that believe the ancient prophets in our Bible, have been sadly reluctant to make the case for the Jewish people's right to the Holy Land based on the very Bible they profess to believe.

I do not know if Christians (and Jews) are afraid of Bush or what. The point is, even Pastor John Hagee (Christians Untited For Israel) has not made a compelling case for Israel to Mr. Bush; nor has he admonished Bush to not carve up Israel based on Biblical prophecy. He's been all but negligent, he and his millions of followers.

Pastor Hagee's track record is horrible as is the track record of most of our Christian friends of Israel. No one, secular or religious, Christian or Jew, is willing to stand up to Mr. Bush.

It's sad.

My point is, if the Jews do not justify our divine right to the Holy Land based on religious principles -- as Muslims are basing their right to the land on their religious principles -- we have little to stand on in the final analysis.

Secularism and secular principles, Hugh, can rationalize and justify most anything, as we are seeing this self-professed Christian president do as we speak.

Hugh said

But such a corridor of land would cut Israel in two. Israel would no longer be "contiguous."

And another thing that the President and the media have failed to take to heart: those two sections of "Palestine", Gaza and the "West Bank", whether or not they are joined by a strip of land, are under the control of two separate governments who are at war with each other. There is Hamas, who won the democratic elections in "Palestine", in control of Gaza, and the PLO/"Palestinian Authority", who are the putative "moderates", in control of the "West Bank". These are the two entities, straddling tiny, tiny Israel, in a state of war with each other, with Israel literally in the middle of them. What could possibly go wrong with this scenario?

More recent history of the Middle East for Hugh and others:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1199964890023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I keep wishing that one of Mr. Bush's advisers would advise him to SHUT HIS YAP regarding Israel and how Israel chooses to respond to terrorist attacks from the so-called "Palestinians".

Israel is a sovereign nation with its own government and its own agenda. Israel as a nation has to do what it thinks best to guarantee the safety and survival of its citizens from rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

Mr. Bush has no reason to be telling Israel what he thinks it should sacrifice (in terms of land or security) in order to feed Bush's dream of a "lasting legacy of Palestinian peace". If Bush thinks the Palestinians need a contiguous homeland, why doesn't he offer them his Crawford ranch????

Fitzgerald-

I was so impressed by your comment that I sent it (via link) to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. No joke. that's what I did.

I think a lot of Hugh's comments should be sent here...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/feedback.htm

Driving Israel into the sea:

Here's a map of what such a statelet (cancer) within Israel would look like, scroll down:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/09/bush-more-popular-than-ever-in-gaza/

This claiming of Jerusalem by Arabs goes back to the time of Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.

Posted above.

My take:
Well, it sounds like it, but not true in reality.

If you dig deeeper you will find, they were highway men. Ancient Arabs excused themselves for robbing on highway, claiming that Ismael was driven into barren desert with nothing to live on, while Jocab was given possession.

Futhermore, when Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D, many Jews took refuge in Arabia. Mohammad looked highly of Jews and Christians before he was exiled from Mecca. Only after claiming that he preached no new religion but that of the Jews and Christian, he was angry with Jews who did not agree with him. He was extremely mad when the Jews ridiculed him. Back then Jews were highly respected by Meccan who disowned Mohammad and drove him to live among thugs.

All his life Mohammad could not subdue Meccan who thought highly of learned Jews. In his frustration, he destroyed the Jewish community at the outskirt of Mecca. Of course plundered their wealth and ravaged the women. Mohammad knew for as long as there were Jews and Christians, they were witness of his false prophethood.

As to the claim to the temple, it happen after Mohammad died. The false prophet died 632 A.D., but stories were invented that he was taken to the Dome of Rock in 612 A.D., but the Dome of Rock was not built until decades after his death. When the Turk claimed power in Jerusalem.

""I do not know if Christians (and Jews) are afraid of Bush or what. The point is, even Pastor John Hagee (Christians Untited For Israel) has not made a compelling case for Israel to Mr. Bush; nor has he admonished Bush to not carve up Israel based on Biblical prophecy. He's been all but negligent, he and his millions of followers.""

No monk Thery're not afraid of Bush ,they worship him ,he is their demi-god replacement for their Jesus.
Their new lord is their savior,messiah who can do not wrong.
Soon they will find another messiah ,lord to replace him.
Maybe another slick talking power hungry ego driven Hucksterbee will seduce them again ?

Today, the imbecile-in-chief blathers on how the U.S. should have destroyed Auschwitz to save the Jews. Hell of a nerve, this jackass, when he won't even lift a finger to save the genocide victims in Dafur on his own watch, and when he won't even allow the U.S. to officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the turks.

My two cents, and if I were President I would stick to this premise:

Israel was established by the United Nations in 1947. Either this proclamation of the United Nations is respected and considered valid by all parties, or, since the violence of the last sixty years cannot continue forever, and certain individual Islamics are the instigators perpetuating the causes which disrespect and invalidate this proclamation of the United Nations, and so we will deliberately flip up the game board and scatter all the pieces and players of this sixty year old "game." All talk now will stop, and we go at it. May the best nation(s) win.

In the year 2008, the West is more powerful and so whatever people in whatever nations we decide to take out, anyone in any of the Islamic nations from Algieria and Morrocco to Indonesia, all are singled out and "militarily, surgically operated on." War. Yep, sounds like war. Because the West is more powerful at this point in time, and because Islamics are disingenuous in civil discourse and don't care to resolve matters peacefully, we single out and remove the instigators of discord. Why? Simply because we have the capability to do so, and they do not.

Yes, just think, finally there is peace. Why? Because the body of people inside the United Nations is deemed by both sides to be about nothing, and because might, in reality, actually does make things "right" sometimes. Everyone will simply have to praise God for this turn of events, and move on.

So it goes.

Some of the comments above suggest that Bush is anti-Israel or antisemitic. This is unfair. He gives off not the slightest whiff of antisemitism. There is nothing carterish about him. He is merely ignorant of Islam, a sentimentalist about "people," and he cannot begin to see the Arab war on Israel in its correct, Muslim context. He is also pressured by Condolleezza Rice, who has bizarrely -- not antisemitically, but bizarrely -- identified the quite measured treatment, undertaken solely to save Israeli lives, of the local shock troops of the lesser Jihad against Israel, those "Palestinians" with their eyes-rolling-skyward feigned torment, with the treatment of blacks in the pre-Birmingham March south. And behind Rice are a host of differently malignant State Department people, and others who cannot allow themselves to analyze correctly the Arab Muslim war on Israel, or for that matter cannot allow themselves to analzye correctly the meaning, and therefore the permanent menace, of Islam -- for it would require too much re-thinking of too many thinks, require too great an application of intelligence and imagination in coming up with ways to counter that world-wide Jihad, and this is something that most people, including most people in the State Department and the C.I.A., would prefer not to have to do. It would make their lives much easier if it were not true, and if, by throwing Israel to the wolves -- which is what Bush, without realizing it, did, and what anyone who parrots the kind of things he parroted does.

But in his case it is stupidity, not evil. Child and defender of privilege, he has never taken the subway often enough. He doesn't know real life in this country. And he certainly has never had to learn enough about history -- he is lacking in Geschichtegefuhl, that "feel for history," that a President should have, and he lacks the imagination to realize that not everyone in the world wants what he thinks all Americans, and all sensible people, must want. Some people, more than a billion at least, have quite a different view of the universe.

He's not an antisemite. That's the kind of word that should be reserved for Jimmy Carter.

I don't know, Hugh. I'm not arguing with you, and in fact I agree that GWB is not anti-Semitic, but it certainly doesn't matter much. The president's naiveté and misguided idealism make him every bit as dangerous to the Jewish state as the most virulent anti-Semite, so if someone wants to confuse or ignore the rather obvious distinction between Bush's "stupidity" and Carter's racism, he’ll get no argument from me.

Fact is, George Bush may yet accomplish, if he has his way, that which real anti-Semites have so far been unable to get done, despite numerous attempts across the ages: that is, finally to annihilate the Jews.

Serioulsy if I were president there would be no state other than Israel. Let the folks in Israel that don't want to be Israeli go to Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Jordan ... there isn't enough room in Israel for you. Israel must find peace within her boarders, and you will not get it if Muslims are fighting within your boarders to create an Islamic state. I'd clear it block by block, it would be ugly, but what is worse this drawn out conflict or one that ends in several months?

Israel has absorbed a million Jews from all over the world. A large number were prosecuted Jews from Muslim countries. Israel should reciprocate in kind by kicking out the remaining Muslim traitors from their country. Let the muslims ummah take care of their brothers in religion!

Its Land of Islam and Land of War...Muslims do not treat kafirs with dignity and human rights, so the kafirs will treat them the same way!

After a while one ceases,in the avalanche of hatred, to be outraged by the lies and propaganda circulated in the western press on the subject of Israel. The exterminationist comments that appear on blogs are also extremely distasteful but can be put down to sheer ignorance, brainwashing or simple Jew hatred.
but yesterday comments appeared in the WAPO made by none other than the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi himself which made my blood boil once again.
I will not comment expect to say that I have rarely seen such an odious piece in my life
Read and lament!
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbours would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbours and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

Hugh, you wrote: Some of the comments above suggest that Bush is anti-Israel or antisemitic.">>>

I believe Mr. Bush is indeed anti-Israel; perhaps anti-Semitic. There are degrees of anti-Semitism. Not every anti-Semite wakes up in the morning thinking (as Abe Foxman put it), "Today I am going to get a Jew!" I have met polite, circumspect, even cautious and genteel Christian anti-Semites like Mr. Bush and his father -- not that G. H. W. Bush claims to be a Christian. G. W. Bush does in fact claim to be a practicing Christian.

Haid Dasalami wrote: "Fact is, George Bush may yet accomplish, if he has his way, that which real anti-Semites have so far been unable to get done, despite numerous attempts across the ages: that is, finally to annihilate the Jews."

This is a fact. Not conjecture. I will never forget those bloody months of suicide bombings, week after week, early 2001, prior to the September 11, 2001 atrocities. I will never forget, nor will I forgive the callous scoldings from Bush and his surrogates. Bush scolded and condemned Israel for defending herself. We heard condemnations from the administration that Israel was exercising an "excessive and disproportionate" response to the suicide bombings as Sharon bombed empty Palestinian Authority buildings; there were repeated calls for restraint on the part of Israel, etc., from Bush administration officials and from Bush himself.

Hugh you may call this stupidity. I call it callous; perhaps anti-Semitic.

fRIDA,

As I read that statement, I realized how much it applied to the Islamic world, not to the Jews. Too bad it wasn't directed at them.

Muslims are the ones who can't move ahead because they are bent on reclaiming land taken unjustly from them. Too bad it's SPAIN they're talking about.

"You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them." (?)
Describes Muslim mindset perfectly.

"Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs." (Muslims all the way)

What's shameful is that this man doesn't recognize the damage done to his own country in the name of Islam.

Actually I believe a Palestinian state is necessary. As the Israeli Prime Minister has pointed out, the most dangerous thing for Israel is a South African-style struggle for majority rights. Israel, like South Africa used to be, is militarily powerful and cannot be defeated by military means or terror. The real danger is demographics. If Israel continues to occupy Palestinian populated areas, sooner or later Arabs will become a majority given their higher birth rate. Then the existence of Israel will become untenable as that of White South Africa became.

It is essential that the Palestinian populated areas are separated from Israel, and opposition to Islam shouldn't obscure this. The main problem I see is that Palestinians won't be able to resist attacking Israel and Israel will be forced back into occupation to protect itself.

Nevertheless separation is the solution if Israel wants to survive in the long term. First and Third world peoples cannot co-exist in the same territory indefinitely.

Bath Ed, may I ask, where do you live? What country?

"Actually I believe a Palestinian state is necessary. As the Israeli Prime Minister has pointed out, the most dangerous thing for Israel is a South African-style struggle for majority rights. Israel, like South Africa used to be, is militarily powerful and cannot be defeated by military means or terror. The real danger is demographics. If Israel continues to occupy Palestinian populated areas, sooner or later Arabs will become a majority given their higher birth rate. Then the existence of Israel will become untenable as that of White South Africa became.

It is essential that the Palestinian populated areas are separated from Israel, and opposition to Islam shouldn't obscure this. The main problem I see is that Palestinians won't be able to resist attacking Israel and Israel will be forced back into occupation to protect itself.

Nevertheless separation is the solution if Israel wants to survive in the long term. First and Third world peoples cannot co-exist in the same territory indefinitely."

In South Africa the "First World" people -- to use the terms you employ -- are a minority. In Israel the Jews are a majority. You think Israael can survive without retaining control -- and control must mean possession, and must mean settlement to guarantee that permanent control -- of the historic invasion route from the east, which requires control of the heights of Judea, and of the aquifers in the "West Bank" on which Israel relies. You think that if Israel were to annex, and annex forever, the "West Bank" this would require giving the local Arabs the right to vote, the rights of citizenship. Why? Are there not, all over the world, non-citizens living by the millions in the countries of others? Isn't that the only way that "First-World" countries can continue to have cultural and political and demographic continuity?

You fail to realize that the demographic problem does not go away if Israel gives up control of the "West Bank." The Arabs will be there, in any case, and if they control things, they will make the "West Bank" a center for anti-Israel terrorism and attack, as Gaza has become.

Eseentially, you have merely offered a re-hash of the arguments used to persuade the Israelis to acquiesce in the retreat from Gaza -- with the results we can all see, in Sderot, and elsewhere. Apparently, you think that the example of Gaza should be followed in dealing with the "West Bank" -- the loss of which would be suicidal for Israel.

As for these pieties about Israel "remaining a democratic and Jewish state," forgive me if it all leaves me cold. Israel has to survive. It has to be far more willing to stand on its rights, and if necessary to make life difficult for the Arabs in the "West Bank" (or in Israel in its pre-1967, i.e. 1949, armistice lines) so that they, giving up hope, will leave in large numbers, and even to contemplate, for the sake of the survival of the Jewish state, what Benes and Masaryk had no qualms about doing with the ethnic Germans - the "Sudeten" Germans -- when they expelled them in 1946.

You have failed to grasp the essence of Islam. Therre is no end to the Jihad. There is no end to the attemp[t to destroy Israel as an Infidel nation-state. It will not be assuaged, this impulse to destroy Israel, nor as the American government appears to believe, to be "solved" (an absurd idea, an aburd phrase, that "two-state solution"), by Israel giving up still more of the territory to which it has a solid legal, moral, and historic claim, based mainly, but not exclusively, on the original intent of those who created the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine.

The Arabs possess lands more than one thousand times, in area, the size of tiny Israel. Israel has no natural resources, only human ones. The Arabs, per contra, have been the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973 alone. And they are more richly endowed with natural resources -- oil and gas -- than almmost any other people on earth. But they do not help, and are indifferent to, the "Palestinians" except insofar as those local Arabs, those "Palestinians," can be used as the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel. Eventually, even those "Palestinians" will despair -- some despair right now -- and give up, and move away from both Gaza and the "West Bank" both of which, for the Arabs, are un-viable. All the West has to do is to stop supplying the disguised Jizya of foreign aid. That's all.