Music Video Tribute for Palestine and Ziyad Yaghi

---

Siraj Davis April 8, 2013 1:48 pm (Pacific time)

In regards to your claims that suicide bombers are the Palestinians' new weapon, that is a hyperbole. The number of deaths by Palestinian suicide bombers in comparison to deaths by Israel 'weapons of mass destruction' are negligible. Palestinian suicide bombers are not the dangerous threat you would like for them to be. According to If Americans Only Knew, the ratio is 6 Palestinians to each Israeli.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Doesn't sound as dangerous to me.

Furthermore, what is omitted form your interpretation of history along with many other ommissions you have made, is that during the entire timeline you gave which includes peace proposals, Israel continuously took lands from the Palestinians.

Again, it is up to Israel to prove wrong the suspicions and beliefs of Israel's intent to ethnically cleanse Palestine regardless of a peace agreement. The Palestinians do not want a second state, they want to live in the same lands as Israelis. They coexisted before, but under a government that could offer equal protection and rights; it seems the existing one can not secure such.

Everyday Palestinians live away from their homelands in neighboring countries doesn't remind them of the fact that they are the largest refugee population in the world, it reminds them of the lies and evil that Zionist Israel did to them and thier families and ancestors.
For those within Palestine now, the harsh conditions under which they live under caused by Israeli apartheid and blockades offer the equivalent pill.
The attacks will continue until you make the living conditions of the normal Palestinian better so they are not susceptible to outside and alternative ideologies of hope. The attacks will continue until you make a government that respects all rights and offers real sincere peace, not land grabs under the guile of peace. The attcks will continue as long as Israel proceeds to steal Palestinian lands without promising to return them.
In response to your statements that massive checkpoints, pre-emptive prosecutions, and current means are deterring the violence against Palestinians. I have to differ in opinion here. Those methods are making occupation more apparent to the Palestinians and life unbearable.
Apartheid and segregation has never resolved a civil conflict, only prolonged and burgeoned it until it either burst asunder into horrible violence or it is resolved by integration.

Israel's survival relies on cceptnce of this axiom of social history. Otherwise, it may continue to push the rest of the Palestinians into the other lands and choose to be constantly surrounded by hostile neighbors. One thing I can assure you Professor Taheri, is that the Palestinian identity and thier attachment to that land will never be relinquished or muffled or forgotten. ISrael will have to answer, better now before it is too late, the latter may not find Israel in the best positions to control the outcome, God forbid.

If Israel were to understand the Arab and Muslim culture, truly understand, it will clearly see without a doubt that inherit within those conglomeration is a long history of heroes and heroines who made showing more compassion to the enemy than the enemy shows them a admirable and sought after manner of fighting. HOwever, how much more will Israel do before it is unforgiveable by any human creature on this panet.

In regards to your suggestion that a right of return for Palestinians is the equivalent of the dismantling of the Israeli state...

If that be the case and concern, then Israel nor you Professor Taheri, have anything to complain about in regards to the history of your diatribe against the Palestinians' refusasl to be cowered into submission in order to accept a peace. If Israel considers a massive immigration of Palestinians into Israel as forfeiture of the Israeli nation, then how could you have expected the Palestinians to think otherwise when it was occuring to them?

ALmost eveyrthing in your thoughts is from the ISraeli perspective with not even a modicum of appreciation of the Palestinians' perspective.
Palestinians have been the victims of violence for so long.

I shy away from every claiming that bigotry has any justifiable basis. I can not convince others of the same stance unfortunately.

Unfortunately, Israel has found itself in the sad state of justifying its crimes and existence by the most farcical claims that escape human nature and reality. Here is some advice long overdue, the more land ISrael takes, the worse it gets. The Palestinian people are not going anywhere, they are your neighbors. Perhaps God will grant justice on earth with illegal waves of non-violent immigration back to Palestine like what was the simuli for this sad tragedy.

P.S.
The word "violently rejected it" is mentioned a whopping six times as if if to brainwash the unsuspecting reader that the frequency in which the words is typed indicates its veracity.

There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust.
Does this make the aforementioned any more true?
*The above question was rhetorical and not indicative of my views*

I don't want a drone to strike my apartment in a pre-emptive strike. This comment's intent was to provoke laughter and prove a point, yet I admittedly accept it may provoke fear amongst some coherent minds in regards to the very nature of totalitarianism we are witnessing today :(

---

Siraj Davis April 8, 2013 1:14 pm (Pacific time)

Professor Taheri stated,

"But instead they chose to introduce their latest weapon against the Jews: The suicide bomber; in 2000 with the Barak offer, but they violently rejected it, and started the gruesome series of suicide massacres known as the “Second Intifada;” in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal of 2005, but they violently rejected it with thousands of missile and rocket attacks; in 2008 with the Olmert offer, but they violently rejected. Every single month there have been dozens of attacks and attempted attacks from both the West Bank and Gaza.
The only things preventing a bloodbath in Israel are the Israeli security measures: The barrier and checkpoints in the West Bank, the border and anti-missile system in Gaza, and the intelligence that leads to preemptive arrests. The Palestinians had many chances. They rejected them all because destroying Israel (“what was taken by force will only be returned by force”) has been a higher priority. And it still is. They would only stop attacking Israelis and talk peace if Israel accepts the right of return, in other words, peace with Israel only if there is no Israel. This total rejection of the Jews’ right to self-determination, and the relentless attempts to murder Jews, may lead to events such as the ones brilliantly depicted in Jonathan Bloomfield’s award-winning thriller, “Palestine,” in which actual history and future predictions are thinly veiled as fiction."

In regards to your claims that suicide bombers are the Palestinians' new weapon, that is a hyperbole. The number of deaths by Palestinian suicide bombers in comparison to deaths by Israel 'weapons of mass destruction' are negligible. Palestinian suicide bombers are not the dangerous threat you would like for them to be. According to If Americans Only Knew, the ratio is 6 Palestinians to each Israeli.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Doesn't sound as dangerous to me.
Furthermore, what is omitted form your interpretation of history along with many other ommissions you have made, is that during the entire timeline you gave which includes peace proposals, Israel continuously took lands from the Palestinians.

Again, it is up to Israel to prove wrong the suspicions and beliefs of Israel's intent to ethnically cleanse Palestine regardless of a peace agreement. The Palestinians do not want a second state, they want to live in the same lands as Israelis. They coexisted before, but under a government that could offer equal protection and rights; it seems the existing one can not secure such.

Everyday Palestinians live away from their homelands in neighboring countries doesn't remind them of the fact that they are the largest refugee population in the world, it reminds them of the lies and evil that Zionist Israel did to them and thier families and ancestors.
For those within Palestine now, the harsh conditions under which they live under caused by Israeli apartheid and blockades offer the equivalent pill.

The attacks will continue until you make the living conditions of the normal Palestinian better so they are not susceptible to outside and alternative ideologies of hope. The attacks will continue until you make a government that respects all rights and offers real sincere peace, not land grabs under the guile of peace. The attcks will continue as long as Israel proceeds to steal Palestinian lands without promising to return them.
In response to your statements that massive checkpoints, pre-emptive prosecutions, and current means are deterring the violence against Palestinians. I have to differ in opinion here. Those methods are making occupation more apparent to the Palestinians and life unbearable.
Apartheid and segregation has never resolved a civil conflict, only prolonged and burgeoned it until it either burst asunder into horrible violence or it is resolved by integration.

Israel's survival relies on cceptnce of this axiom of social history. Otherwise, it may continue to push the rest of the Palestinians into the other lands and choose to be constantly surrounded by hostile neighbors. One thing I can assure you Professor Taheri, is that the Palestinian identity and thier attachment to that land will never be relinquished or muffled or forgotten. ISrael will have to answer, better now before it is too late, the latter may not find Israel in the best positions to control the outcome, God forbid.
If Israel were to understand the Arab and Muslim culture, truly understand, it will clearly see without a doubt that inherit within those conglomeration is a long history of heroes and heroines who made showing more compassion to the enemy than the enemy shows them a admirable and sought after manner of fighting. HOwever, how much more will Israel do before it is unforgiveable by any human creature on this panet.

In regards to your suggestion that a right of return for Palestinians is the equivalent of the dismantling of the Israeli state...

If that be the case and concern, then Israel nor you Professor Taheri, have anything to complain about in regards to the history of your diatribe against the Palestinians' refusasl to be cowered into submission in order to accept a peace. If Israel considers a massive immigration of Palestinians into Israel as forfeiture of the Israeli nation, then how could you have expected the Palestinians to think otherwise when it was occuring to them?

ALmost eveyrthing in your thoughts is from the ISraeli perspective with not even a modicum of appreciation of the Palestinians' perspective.

Palestinians have been the victims of violence for so long.
I shy away from every claiming that bigotry has any justifiable basis. I can not convince others of the same stance unfortunately.
Unfortunately, Israel has found itself in the sad state of justifying its crimes and existence by the most farcical claims that escape human nature and reality. Here is some advice long overdue, the more land ISrael takes, the worse it gets. The Palestinian people are not going anywhere, they are your neighbors. Perhaps God will grant justice on earth with illegal waves of non-violent immigration back to Palestine like what was the simuli for this sad tragedy.

P.S.
The word "violently rejected it" is mentioned a whopping six times as if if to brainwash the unsuspecting reader that the frequency in which the words is typed indicates its veracity.
There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust, There was no Holocaust.
Does this make the aforementioned any more true?
*The above question was rhetorical and not indicative of my views*
I don't want a drone to strike my apartment in a pre-emptive strike. This comment's intent was to provoke laughter and prove a point, yet I admittedly accept it may provoke fear amongst some coherent minds in regards to the very nature of totalitarianism we are witnessing today :(

---

Siraj Davis April 8, 2013 12:43 pm (Pacific time)

Siraj Davis

"The Palestinians could have had a peaceful state… in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it; in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it, pursuing their (in)famous battle-cry, “Itbach al-Yahud”–Slaughter the Jews; in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to launch an offensive together with five regular Arab armies in an effort to “drive the Jews into the sea;” from 1948-1967 in the West Bank and Gaza, where the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every single Jew, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to infiltrate the Jewish country and murder its civilians; after 1967, but instead, they and the rest of the Arab world issued the 3 No’s of Khartoum: No to peace with Israel, No to recognition of Israel, No to negotiations with Israel; after the 1993 Oslo Accords."

In regards to your history of omissions with the history of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, there are several noticeable and severe flaws I feel salient to dilineate.
1) There were no problems between Jews, Christians, Muslims , Palestinians, Israelis, Marshans, Aliens, Demons, Angels, or whatever neologism you desire to concoct to justify ethnic cleansing and wrongful imprisonment, before the 1940s. Throughout millenia of history in your incorrect depiction of Palestine as a volatile and war torn land, peace reigned with the only two major conflicts victimizing the Jewish people, that with the Romans and the other with the Assyrians. Muslims, Christians, and Jewish lived peacefully for a significant length of time and co-existed on a very noticeable scale. It is unfair and misleading for any internet academic such as one claiming to be a professor to commit such an error which would only be prevalent in the fallacious analyses of undergraduate students. Why did you 'professor' Taheri?

In striking contrast to your version of the facts, the hostility arose and originated when a third nation (England) coerced a Palestinian government to acquiesce to massive illegal immigration of European Jews into their country whom were fleeing genocide in Europe. Ironically and tragically, this consequently resulted in the Palestinian government becoming forcibly dissolved and the original inhabitants of Palestine escaping possible genocide and persecution from the newly arrived Jewish. Finally, Israel was then born. Now I call THAT infiltration.
The beginning violent hostilities between whatever population before 1948, the formal and official declaration of the Israeli state, was a civil conflict that resulted from the fear that an acting Palestinian government and controlling Palestinian majority population would naturally feel if foreign immigration escalated to such a peak which would warrant a credible threat to the norm of its environment by a minority. The Palestinians feared, and according to your own logic rightfully so, that the massive illegal migrations of Jewish refugees into Palestine would procure such a scenario. How does your own logic buttress the preceding assertion? You stated that pre-1948 offers of accepting Zionist statehood or nationalism were made to the Palestinians and they rejected it. The implicit thesis of this is that the Palestinians could have lived peacefully with Zionist Israelis had they not rejected peace offers in the beginning. However, to be more accurate, you should have stated specifically that if Palestinians would have capitulated to Zionists' demands to give their lands to the nascent and inchoate state of Israel, then ethnic cleansing and the horrible stasis which exists now would not have become a reality. Therefore you, yourself, admitted that there was in fact an 'infiltration' of a foreign element representing minority interests into Palestine which sought to ascertain the subversion and transformation of a country into another, a Zionist Israel. Consequently, Palestinians had 'every' right to reject and defend themselves from a fresh influx of Zionists whose sole intent since the 1930s was the destruction of the millenia status quo and country of Palestine.
Such suspicion is of course supported by the founder Theodore Herzl's own words in Der Judenstaat in 1895 where he became famous for his declaration that the Jewish needed thier own country. Although he admitted that he knew little about the history of his Jewish predecessors before writing about the need for a Jewish Homeland and amalgamating this ideology with Jewish cultural precedents and religious history; he was unsure of three destinations of such a conglomerations of Jews - Uganda, Argentina, and Palestine. It is also exigent to point out that even Theodore Herzl on his death bed requested that others greet 'Palestine' for him, He did not mention the name Israel.
Thus, Palestinians were only exercising thier natural right as a human under any political system in the history of humankind; to protect and ensure the self interests of a nation, a people, a culture. This is an axiom of political thought and I believe it is incredulous at the least for anyone to assert that no nation in the world would tolerate massive immigration and further subversion and 'infiltration' into thier societies and governments with the primary and only intent of destroying their nation.

The exigent question needed to be posed is would America allow Mexicans to enter illegally on a massive scale without being concerned or attempting to thwart such a disapora with orthodox and unorthodox responses? Would 'any' nation? I think we know the answer to this question already.
Now , why would you expect Palestinians to act any differently to massive illegal Jewish immigration into its lands in the beginning? It sounds rather unfair and biased to me. If not void of realistic and sincere analysis of the existing dilemma from a balanced perspective.

In regards to your chronology of events. Let me descry why I have a large amount of hesitancy in accepting your assertions. We have already established that you take events out of the historical continuity of a conflict and present them as a truth. This is unethical, and again misleading. I am also reluctant to confide in your theories because you neglect the details which are pertinent to arrive at a logical and coherent interpretation.
The Peel COmmission was set up by the British as a response to Palestinian uprisings to British policies in favor of the Zionists. It was in this investigation that the first instance of partition arose. However, Israel could have avoided the horrible affliction it suffers now and will suffer more of in the future by adhering and respecting the opinion of the Woodward Commission findings of the Peel investigation which declared partition was unimplementable. Furthermore, it was not only Arabs who rejecte the plan, but also the Zionists as well. It was in the twentieth ionist Congress of Zurich where the majority voted that the Peel Commission's offer is not to be accepted." Furthermroe, University of Arizona PRofessor Charles D. Smith makes a extremely strong case that those who did favor the plan such as David Ben Gurion had intentions of not following those plans "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict", 7th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010), 138-140.
In regards to the MacDonald White Paper, the ionists and Arabs rejected the plan. NOt solely Arabs. PLease check your history. On February 27, 1939 Zionist 'terrorists' sparked waves of bombings across Palestine targeting innocent civilians in reaction to the WHite Paper. The ionist elements within Palestine unanimously rejected the plan with David Ben Gurion even condemning it.

Your history knowledge Professor Taheri is flawed, if not fabricated. Please do more research before typing a response. I would like this to be a tad bit more challenging.
In all truth, the Zionists severed the demarcation lines of peaceful society with 'terrorism' upon innocent Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Palestine in order to create the Zionist state of Israel. http://sirajdavis.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/cia-document-declared-israel-founded-upon-terrorism/
The above is a declassifed document which clearly avers that the irregular forces of the Irgun Levy used "terrorism" to kill or coerce innocent Jewish, Muslim, and Chrisitian civilians of Palestine in order to ascertain the political goal of Theodore Herzl, a nationalistic and absurd abonmination - Israel. Albeit it is interesting to note the irony in how the tables have turned today as the cliche goes, it does bring into the question not only the veracity of the War on Terrorism, but also the authenticity of Israeli Zionist claims of their history and legitimacy.
In regards to your use of the Arab invasions of Israel after the 1948 declaration of Israeli statehood to declare the Palestinians did not prefer a peaceful process, it was this final knife stroke in the back, the declaration of Israeli Statehood after many years of Zionists employing guile that convinced not only Palestinians but all the surrounding Arab neighbors that the fears and consternations of predictions of a fifth foreign element annexing lands by force came true. A once sanguine people who lived in peace together for millenia were not at each others' throats at behest of the unexpected introduction of a subversive and dangerous entity, Zionism, created by a man who believed and was a member of one of the constituents of the Burschenschaft fraternity which later amalgamated with the Nazi Party. Herzl was a reject and racist who could not employ his racist policies within German Nationalism, so he absconded away from God's conscience within him and instead of changing for the better, sought to extradite his hate and pathetic sense of superiority toward another victim, a weaker one, the Arab Christian and Muslim. It is indeed a tragic irony that the horrible monster of Nazi Germany which devoured so many innocent Jews consequently caused the same victims to become them now.
After Deir Yassin on April 9 1948, the massacres of innocent Palestinian children and civilians convinced all Palestinians and Arabs that this extremist element needed to be addressed despite the possible repercussions of the powerful western powers at the time.
Palestinians had been lied to, massacred, and were losing their lands to Zionist terrorists. I think the Arab invasions were suitable to the circumstances and I strongly believe the neighbors of England or America would not tolerate such aforementioned acts by an illegal immigrant population which sought the 'infiltration' and consequent creation of a ahistorical and unnatural country.

Wait, America and Europe did not tolerate it in World Wars I or II. Enough said :) Why oulwd you expect Palestinians and Arabs to?

"The Historiography of Deir Yassin", Journal of Israeli History, volume 24, issue 1. Benny Morris 2008, pp. 126–128.

---

Siraj Davis April 8, 2013 12:42 pm (Pacific time)

professor Taheri stated,

"While clearly biased toward Israel, the facts are correct, and I thought they were relevant here, as I felt that the context of this deplorable occupation was missing: "
I agree with this depiction after the facts are known that you are the author, not an imaginary friend or author. And I also concur that your perspective is relevant.
However, I part direction with your preceding words by emphasizing that the 'context' you presented is the normal propaganda by Israel and its pundits regularly broadcasted on national and international television and other media distributors across the world. Thus, how could what you introduced be 'missing context' when it is current information heavily stressed in major information distributors in regards to Israel. The majority of the world acknowledges that there exists a thin and transparent curtain hanging in front of the window, unsuccessfully blocking the view of the world from peering into the reality of occupation and apartheid in Israel/Palestine. I have no doubt of this and only those ignorant, naive, or oblivious to world opinion would ingore such popular opinion as demonstrated in the recent successful bid for a Palestinian state in the United Nations against the two most powerful and influential stooges of the UN Security Council - America and Israel. Many people give our gratitude for the abstinence by the last third of this comic, yet horrendously culpable trio. I hope I have not insulted the nationalism, or chauvinism, of any reader including you with this prior retort. If I have , please keep in mind, I am an American too and thus a product of that nefarious trio with guilt on our hands for this tragedy. However, I will not ignore my conscience or love for humanity, in exchange for proving myself an idiot to such sordid indoctrination as Andrew Jackson's corrolary that a true American will not apologize for any action his or her government has done because doing so will dishonor one's country. Now after making 'my' stance and motives visibly transparent as a World Citizen, let us proceed please.

---

Siraj Davis April 8, 2013 12:42 pm (Pacific time)

Professor Taheri stated,

"Following is a pro-Israel perspective I saw elsewhere."
If I may interrupt with brevity and honesty, your perspective is pro-Israeli. Nothing within any of your commentary dillineates the benefit of the doubt as to the Palestinians' motives nor is there at least a dearth of positive retorts by you on their behalf nor anything which may be of benefit to the conundrum of which we converse or exchange electronic discussion about.
In addition, I appreciate my decision to employ timing in my response until I observed further activity on your part in order to observe any contradictions on your part. I am satsified enough to aver my late response paid off.
While claiming that you are only posting another's comments as your own as if to exculpate yourself from any commitment or authorship of the statements you posted on this article, your comments on another article written by my colleague Anna O Leary, disabuses your unknown source and clearly espies you as the author of the comments on this article because they correlate with the propaganda on Anna O Leary's publication. the link is below for you or any avid reader to verify such a claim.
Thus , another reason to throw confetti in the air and sound the applause because obviously Salem News is doing something right if our publications draws Zionists to the table of literary debate. Thank you.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april052013/ireland-israel.php?message=1#comments

---

siraj Davis April 8, 2013 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

The following is an overdue reply to the character Professor Taheri.

"I was wondering what "weapons of mass destruction" were used against Palestine. This is the first time I read of that."
The reference to "weapons of mass destruction" was solely written for two reasons. One to demonstrate the abstract nature of this term, which was credible enough to declare a war in Iraq and threaten such declaration against sovereign nations such as Iran and North Korea; regardless of the unarguable fact that America has the most qualitative and quantitative weapons of mass destruction in the world. The other to emphasize the abstract nature of the term. Weapons of mass destruction can also be construed as persistent use of bombs of high explosives and pin-point accuracy, dropped on the innocent civilians of Gaza, farcically justified by the claim of attempting to procure the deaths of less than 1% of the population, Hamas. This claim of dropping such "weapons of mass destruction" in order to kill Hamas is a bewildering and Harry Potter type fantasy of a claim. I entrust more confidence in the veracity of statements by users of recreational drugs than modern austrolopithecines hominoids amongst us that believe such insanity.
As to the determinant of why I chose to employ the term "weapons of mass destruction", I specifically used the phrase to poke fun at the omnipotent idiots within the upper echelons of American government who consistently grants Israel a blank check to carry on their ethnic cleansings and apartheid, since the former loves to point the finger at unrealistic ghosts with no actual or credible basis for this fear or threat. We all know where the term "weapons of mass destruction" was coined :) Have you purposely or mistakingly?

In regards to the abstract nature of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction," although I believe that the techonological abilities of weapons are pertinent when categorizing them as one of "mass destruction" or not, I also think the predicament and reality in Gaza clearly demonstrates to the average intellect that a massive bombing campaign over a period of time can evince just as much or more damage than more technologically advanced weapons dropped quickly in a sudden instant. The results of Israel's COIN tactics against Gaza, a replica of Western COIN shenanigans in the past in such theaters as El Salvador and Nicaragua and Viet-nam and Afghanistan and Iraq, has clearly without a moment of hesitation when averring from my own observations; resulted in mass destruction of the infrastructure, created harm to the psychology of the Gazan people, crippled the Gazan economy, buttressed an instable political and social regime, and severely diminished the living standard of these humans across the borders of Egypt and Israel. I compare Israel's strategy as Total War in targeting every aspect of the defenseless Gazan lives on behest of a few guerillas launching bottle rockets at scarcely populated areas of Israel. If not total war, at least mass destruction with many US financed and Uncle Sam stamped weapons.
A succint yet salient analogy is accepting Israel's claims of dropping 100,000 tons of dynamite as not as menicious or atrocious an act as dropping a single atomic bomb, the latter is equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. Thus an atomic bomb should rightly be construed as a "weapon of mass destruction" wherein the massive advanced bombing technology of large amount and over a hemisphere of time should correctly be construed as "weapons of mass destruction."

Therein, your attention to minute details as above is a waste of time and effort. Let's leave logochamies to the playgrouds and recess yards of elementary school if you will 'Professor' :) Let's also leave intentional amnesia and stupidity at the aforementioned playgrounds and recess yards too. It would be a recirpocal benefit for you and me. But of course, I am more than willing to entertain and reciprocate immaturity.

---

Prof. Taheri February 26, 2013 8:17 am (Pacific time)

Dear Editor,

My understanding is that the Zionists hold their bigoted views because Palestinian rejections go back to before there was an Israeli state.

The Palestinians could have insisted on a state in the West Bank and Gaza during the Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of those territories, but even during those 19 years the main Palestinian focus was the dismantling of the Zionist Entity.

So there is some basis to Israeli bigotry, and to the notion that every bit of land ceded will be used against Israel.

Unfortunately, the violent experiences following the Israeli withdrawals from Southern Lebanon and Gaza only serve to reinforce this bigotry.

Editor: Without question, Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in harmony before Israel's existence.  Obviously the Third Reich is what drove this machine to where it is, it becomes more complex because everyone is born there and feel they have inalienable rights.  You are right that there is immense hatred and in places like Jenin, where IDF has killed so many, the tensions will remain high for a long time.  It is a hard call, but I have a hard time blaming the Palestinians for what  has taken place, I wish we cold use a magic wand to fix it.

---

Prof. Taheri February 25, 2013 4:27 am (Pacific time)

I was wondering what "weapons of mass destruction" were used against Palestine. This is the first time I read of that. Following is a pro-Israel perspective I saw elsewhere. While clearly biased toward Israel, the facts are correct, and I thought they were relevant here, as I felt that the context of this deplorable occupation was missing: The Palestinians could have had a peaceful state… in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it; in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it, pursuing their (in)famous battle-cry, “Itbach al-Yahud”–Slaughter the Jews; in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to launch an offensive together with five regular Arab armies in an effort to “drive the Jews into the sea;” from 1948-1967 in the West Bank and Gaza, where the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every single Jew, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to infiltrate the Jewish country and murder its civilians; after 1967, but instead, they and the rest of the Arab world issued the 3 No’s of Khartoum: No to peace with Israel, No to recognition of Israel, No to negotiations with Israel; after the 1993 Oslo Accords. But instead they chose to introduce their latest weapon against the Jews: The suicide bomber; in 2000 with the Barak offer, but they violently rejected it, and started the gruesome series of suicide massacres known as the “Second Intifada;” in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal of 2005, but they violently rejected it with thousands of missile and rocket attacks; in 2008 with the Olmert offer, but they violently rejected. Every single month there have been dozens of attacks and attempted attacks from both the West Bank and Gaza. The only things preventing a bloodbath in Israel are the Israeli security measures: The barrier and checkpoints in the West Bank, the border and anti-missile system in Gaza, and the intelligence that leads to preemptive arrests. The Palestinians had many chances. They rejected them all because destroying Israel (“what was taken by force will only be returned by force”) has been a higher priority. And it still is. They would only stop attacking Israelis and talk peace if Israel accepts the right of return, in other words, peace with Israel only if there is no Israel. This total rejection of the Jews’ right to self-determination, and the relentless attempts to murder Jews, may lead to events such as the ones brilliantly depicted in Jonathan Bloomfield’s award-winning thriller, “Palestine,” in which actual history and future predictions are thinly veiled as fiction.

Editor: In my experience proud intelligent people like the Palestinians tend to reject offers that are ludicrous and created to boost the agenda of an apartheid state like Israel.  The rocket attacks from Gaza have killed 29 people in all of history.  There are thousands of Palestinians held as political prisoners and Gilad Shalit was the only Israeli held.  At any rate, please know that people are aware of what is taking place, they know the struggle for Palestine is against religious radicals in Israel who have no second thoughts about stealing land.  The worst part is the bigotry, and this extends to all of Israel, including groups like the secular Jews. I'm afraid that Judaism was never meant to be a warring government. 

---

Agron Belica February 24, 2013 9:52 pm (Pacific time)

Ahmed...Buddha.......Siraj....SAY WORD!!!! One Love!

---

Siraj Davis February 24, 2013 9:33 pm (Pacific time)

I am proud of all of my students at the Modern American School, especially these two. What character! TJP

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.