Thursday, January 3, 2008

Peace is not worth it!

US President George W. Bush on Thursday called Israeli settlement expansion an "impediment" to the success of revived peace efforts and urged the Jewish state to follow through on its pledge to dismantle unauthorized settler outposts. (From YNetNews)

Bush and his Israeli judenrat are living in a bubble. Which "revived peace efforts" does he seem to be talking about? Does Bush mean the "peace" that brought Islamic Jihad rockets down on a hotel in Ashkelon? Maybe he's talking about the Arab attempts at peace by building pipe Qassams in the West Bank city of Casbah, the same West Bank that is slated to be given over to those peaceful Arabs. He's probably talking about the peace that allowed the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to fire a rocket at a Jewish settlement, Shaked, which is an impediment for the peace that the Arabs so clearly want.

Most likely, Bush is talking about the peace of the grave that the Arabs were quite happy to provide for David Rubin HY"D and Achikam Amichai HY"D, the two Israeli hikers who were brutally murdered by "moderate" Fatah policemen, with weapons provided by Israel, at the behest of Bush. Is anybody beginning to see a pattern? Let's clarify: Israel releases terrorists, hands over weapons and gives funds to the Arabs as part of a "goodwill" gesture, and the greatful Arabs respond with murder and violence. Obviously, Israel is the impediment to peace! And now, Bush is on his way to Israel to revive peace of the grave talks. Instead of forcing the Arabs to take responsibility, they are allowed to kill and attack Israel and Israel condemned for building settlements in Judea and Samaria. Rather, Israel should settle the land to its hearts content, forcing the Arabs to come to a quick settlement before they lose more land. "And they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people lightly, saying: 'Peace, peace', when there is no peace." (Jeremiah 8:11). There is no peace, no willingness for peace, and yet Bush and Olmert continue to prat on about peace! Peace immediately! Peace at any cost! Bombed houses and dead Jews are "sacrifices for peace". We are prepared to offer and give up anything on the altar of peace!

There is no peace! Bush may demand that Israel withdraw from Judea and Samaria but that would put Israel's most populous cities within range of Hamas rockets. "Hamas fires a rocket with a range of 12.5 miles from Judea and Samaria, it will hit Dizengoff Center (one of Tel Aviv's most popular commercial shopping hubs)," warned Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday afternoon after Gaza terror groups fired a long-range rocket towards southern Israel earlier in the day. The rocket, a 12.5 mile range Grad, hit one of Ashkelon's northern neighborhoods. Speaking at a Likud Secretariat meeting Netanyahu warned that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak "say that the country should withdraw to its 1967 borders. And it is clear that if we leave Judea and Samaria, it is Hamas that we will find on the other side of those '67 borders and they are already in possession of those Katyusha rockets." Israel's withdrawal will only provide one type of peace. It will provide the peace of death, the calm that will fall on the region once Hamas and Fatah are done slaughtering Jews, once Israel is thrown into the see. And this is no peace!

Zionism's goal is/was to provide a Jewish state, in peace or in war. "Peace" is not worth throwing tens of thousands of Jews out of their homes, arming our enemies, co-operating in our own demise or allowwing millions of Arab refugess into Israel. We must not be prepared to sacrifice the Jewish dream for "peace"! Should Bush have a problem with this, he is no true friend of the Jewish people. Let him consult his history books to find out what happened whenever Israel compromised with the sons of the desert, and let him consult the Bible which he claims to believe in, to learn the fate of those who stand against G-d's nation.


Brooke said...

Peace at any cost is not peace.

Anonymous said...

A pro-Israeli British blogger faces arrest and years of imprisonment for telling the truth about Islam. Is this the start of the British government's clampdown on the counter-jihadist blogosphere in response to the recent UN resolution on 'defamation of Islam'?

Joe Gringo said...

My brother emailed to me this (it nails it on the head):

If President Bush were to say, Afro Americans living in a specific area of America cause crime or any other problem, what would he be called?

A racist, is the answer.

President Bush has taken American soldiers and Marines to war in two countries. He has called it a war against Islamic terrorism.

Almost every day rockets are fired out of Gaza into Israel, and less than a week ago, two young Jewish men were gunned down and were left by Palestinian emergency medical teams to bleed to death while they took away the dead and wounded Arabs.

So dead Americans on 9-11 matter, dead Jews at the hands of Islamic terrorist don't matter!

So what does this make President Bush?

A racist and a hypocrite

Israel must have enough pride in being Jewish to stand up to the pressure, or what is the country worth?

Today is not 60 years ago when Jews were being gassed to death and George Bush's grandfather was making money doing business with the Third Reich.

Yehudi said...

Ah, more depressing news. What to do? What to do? Our brothers in Israel are numb...otherwise they would throw Olmert out on his head with his scumbag cronies. We need some serious Divine Intervention.

Yehudi said...

BK, here is the opportunity to perform a fantastic mitzvah..a brother needs some serious financial help...any little bit will help. All the information is here:

Read the article regarding accepting Christian help. Please pass this on to everyone you know that could possibly help.

Progressive Pinhead said...

Its the conservatives who are in a bubble.

Anonymous said...

The problem stems from the fact that western politicians and diplomats are totally incapable of realizing that when they "negotiate" with Muslims, they are dealing with sensibilities that are not only alien to them, but also based upon ancient, barbaric mentalities, moralities and beliefs that the civilized world simply can't conceive.

The "Palestinians" can lie to every U.S. President and SecState during consecutive decades of "peace" accords and the gullible fools will continue to come away with slaps on the back for "finally bringing peace to the Middle East", while Israel has made dangerous concessions vs promises the Arabs will simply ignore, while receiving western largesse as a misplaced bribe.

Then the "Palestinians" will continue with terrorism as usual, and the next U.S. administration will repeat the process.

Olmert's moronics only serve to compliment the obtuse, wishful thinking of American politicians and diplomats.

Anonymous said...

Bar: I respectfully disagree. I've been to the hilltops of Judea and the prairies of Shomron and I love these places with all my heart. They're more dear to me than the rest of Israel combined.

However, the cause of real peace is a great cause(not to be confused with the cause which young activist stands for: a peace which would endanger Israel, giving the Palestinians an excuse to continue maiming, raping, and killing Jooooooooos.

I would be willing to give up on Yehuda and Shomron in exchange for signed peace with all the Arab states, a complete normalization of ties, a return of Israeli hostages being held by Egypt, Syria and Iran, the return of Yonatan Pollard, and the P.A. giving up once and for all their quest for a return of Palestinian "refugees." They'd also have to completely stop all terrorist activities and if there would have to be a clause stating that if they returned to their barbaric ways we would be entitled to unileterally annex post-'67 territories back.

Anonymous said...

I have to say Eitan that is the most foolish thing you have ever said. First, you say you are a student of Jabotinsky who would accept nothing less then our birthright; a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan, do you think he would be proud to hear that his supposed students would casually write off 85% of our ancestrol homeland including all the holy places. Second it astounds me that you would so casually agree to sell out our homeland for any reason even if it would bring true peace I wouldnt give away one inch of Eretz Yisrael. You are thinking like a ghetto Jew, who will do anything if the Goyim will even pretend to like him for a moment. Third we have no right to give away any part of Eretz Yisrael because Hashem has given it to the Jewish people for all generations, you are promising what belongs to Jews who arent even born yet. Fourth it is a Mitzvah to settle all of Eretz Yisrael that applies in all generations, and this is a Milchemet Mitzvah which we must even be willing to sacrifice our own lives for Chas V'shalom. Fifth it is a central tenent of Jihad to pretend to make peace with the infidel to further Islamic conquest when the Muslims lack the strength for direct military confrontation. For example Sadat(long may he rot in hell) whose greatest hero was Hitler yimach shmo vizichro, who admitted that he didnt disagree with the PLO only their methods. Whose country(which was stolen from the Copts by the Arab Muslims{They also believed in land for peace, whoops}) continues to support every terror group under the sun so long as they dont directly challenge Egyptian sovreignty, support through funding, training, and bases. That is the negotiated peace, a peace of lies to weaken us until the Arab/Muslims have regained their strength.

Eitan, though I know you arent observant you have always been respectful to the Torah,a nd since he who is not warned is not held responsible I remind you of the words of the Rambam, Chovel U'Mazik Perek Ches Halacha Yud "A Jew who givesup land to Goyim, he is a Moser, and there is no place for him in the world to come."

Progressive Pinhead said...

I would be willing to give up on Yehuda and Shomron in exchange for signed peace with all the Arab states, a complete normalization of ties, a return of Israeli hostages being held by Egypt, Syria and Iran, the return of Yonatan Pollard, and the P.A. giving up once and for all their quest for a return of Palestinian "refugees." They'd also have to completely stop all terrorist activities and if there would have to be a clause stating that if they returned to their barbaric ways we would be entitled to unileterally annex post-'67 territories back.

If the Palestinian feel that to be a just settlement then I would support that proposal. Any attempts to make peace by either side should be wholehartedly embraced.

Progressive Pinhead said...

"Even if it would bring true peace I wouldnt give away one inch of Eretz Yisrael."
Then you are an enemy of peace and progress, you are just as responsible for Jewish blood spilled in this conflict as supporters of the various terrorist groups.

Anonymous said...

While I think that the Palestinians dont deserve any land(they already have Jordan) and that their nationality was invented as a weapon against Israel, I agree wih young activist. The only problem is that its very unlikely to happen. The palestinians would never stop their attacks and Muslims will never accept Israel considering how Egypt and Jordan have acted since theyv signed peace treatys.
With friends like them who needs enemies?

"There can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both. To think that two states can stably and peacefully coexist in the small territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is to be either naïve or duplicitous. If the last seventy years teach anything, it is that there can be only one state west of the Jordan River. Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel."

^Daniel Pipes

Progressive Pinhead said...

The same thing was said about Ireland.

Anonymous said...

This is megga strange: young activist and I actually agree on this one. Young activist: let me ask you a question just for kicks: Would you say that threatening to report me to the government for me saying what I did(and I was wrong) was a little childish(not to mention it brings back memories of the good-ol' Soviet regime which I wasn't very fond of)?

kahaneloyalist: With all due respect, I don't buy into what you say. Zhabotinsky, were he still alive, would probably agree with me that were the Palestinians to meet the conditions I listed, a Palestinian state should be created in Yehuda and Shomron. But what gets me is that this whole argument we're having is idle talk: the Palestinians would never(I don't think) agree to the parameters I listed.

Avi said...

But the real question is moral rights: If the land belongs to us, why should we give it up? If a robber will make peace with you in exchange for your home, will you agree?

Anonymous said...

Bar: have you read my conditions for such a treaty? Don't you think permanent peace with the entire Arab world is worth Yehuda and Shomron?

The question isn't as simple as you might think it is. There is no clear answer; not as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous said...

No, permanent peace is not worth Yehuda and Shomron. If someone breaks into your home and promises he will stop trying to kill your family if you give him your kitchen no one with the slightest self respect would ever do it.

Is permanet peace also worth Tel Aviv? Because Yehuda and Shomron are the Jewish heartland and all the holy places are there, not on the coastal plain.

Anonymous said...

kahaneloyalist: to answer your question, if I had the choice between Telli and Yehuda and Shomron, I'd pick Telli in a split second.

Avi said...

But Eitan, where does it stop? What if they want Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, Haifa... if they insist on the North for peace or the Negev... limits on Jewish immigration... never conced to terrorists.

Also, would land for peace work the other way? Could we annex more land if they continue to attack?

O.T. Open question: How do I change the font, size or colour for posts.

Avi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Progressive Pinhead said...

For the sake of its own survival Israel must make peace. It is the sole Jewish state in a sea of hostile Arabs. Israel has to win every war it fights or it will be destroyed, the Arabs on the other hand only have to win one war and they will be victorious. I would assume that even the most finatical Zionists would accept that giving up some land is better then sacrificing the entire state, unless of course they subscribe to the uncompromising suicidal ideology of the Norse.

Eitan, if you will look under the post about occupation I have answered your question.

Anonymous said...

YA: I respect what you said. I say things I don't mean to say out of frustration, bitterness, and anger all the time. Good to know you're not a communist;)

Anonymous said...

Bar: In that case what do you or kahaneloyalist suggest Israel does(besides transfer which is undoable at this point)?

Anonymous said...

Those of littel faith and lacking a belief in Jewish destiny always say things are undoable. They said we cant win against Jordan, Egypt and Syria, dont make war against them and liberate YESHA. They told Ben Gurion he couldnt get away with expelling half a million Arabs. They said we must make a state at all because its unrealistic. They said Jews returning to our homeland after 2,000 years is a pipe dream. Such people say many things, but accomplish nothing. Hashem has made us a promise, if we conquer the land properly, there will be peace. If we surrender the land, or allow foreigners to stay in our homeland, there will be war.