I don’t know if people have been following this Fatah Conference that has been going on. If you haven’t, that’s too bad, because the thing has been a totally entertaining trainwreck. Yesterday, it got even better.

In the latest installment of “We Couldn’t Make This Shit Up if We Tried”, Fatah (those oh-so-moderate peace lovers) are taking the position that “the return of both east and west Jerusalem to Palestinian control was a ‘red line’ which was non-negotiable, and would need to be fulfilled before any peace talks with Israel could renew.” This is just bizarre.

The “return” of (east and west) Jerusalem to “Palestinian control?” Jerusalem (east, west, north, south or whatever) has NEVER been under “Palestinian control” for even a second of human history. Since 1967, the entirety of Jerusalem has been under Israeli control. The western portion of the city has been under Israeli control since the end of the 1948 War of Independence. Before that, it was under British control through the Mandate. Before that, it was under Ottoman Turkish control (nobody mistakes them for “Palestinians) since roughly 1517, and Mamluk Turkish control from 1291-1517. Before 1291, it was ruled by the Christian Crusader Kingdom since 1099. The only period of Arab Muslim rule (NOT so-called “Palestinian” rule) over Jerusalem occurred from 636-1099, when the city was controlled by the Islamic Caliphate. Before that, you had the Byzantines, before that the Romans, and before that, THE JEWS.

Indeed, the western portion of Jerusalem didn’t even exist until well into the 20^th century and was wholly the result of Zionism. In terms of the history of Jerusalem as a whole, Jews represented a plurality of its citizens as far back as 1844, long before the Zionist movement began massive immigration of Jews to the Holy Land. As early as 1896, Jews were the majority of inhabitants of the city and have been so since then to this very day.

Despite the fact that all of this information is available on the website of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Israel, for some odd reason, chooses not to deploy it. Instead, the response is simply that Fatah’s “declaration was a clear message to all those who maintained the ‘illusion that the Palestinians were prepared for compromise.’" But that’s not the right response at all. If the Arabs are right, and Jerusalem belongs to them, why should they give it up? Why should they compromise? That’s the message that the world hears and processes. The correct response is not “they won’t compromise.” It’s “they are liars. It’s ours, not theirs, and here’s why.”

And the stakes of making that case could not be higher. As Caroline Glick so eloquently argued (in a speech that is an absolute MUST-HEAR for anybody with even a passing interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict):

The Americans prefer to ignore the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of the city's frontline status as they push for an Israeli retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. For them, the issue of Jerusalem is no more than a petty real estate squabble. But our enemies know better. For them the question of who controls Jerusalem is rightly recognized as the core issue - as the issue upon which Israel rises or falls as a state and as a people. Earlier this month, this point was made clearly by one of Israel's sworn enemies. In a television interview on May 7, the PLO's Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki explained that from the PLO to the Iranian mullahs, Jerusalem is seen as the metaphysical key to Israel's wellbeing. As he put it,

"With the [implementation of the] two-state solution, [involving an Israeli relinquishment of Jerusalem], in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."

That is what is at stake, and that is why Israel must make the persuasive case that Jersualem belongs to the Jews, not to the Palestinians.

The International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People

Well, this past Saturday was November 29, and like every November 29 since 1977, the United Nations, in a truly saintly act of pure non-biasedness, celebrated its (I kid you not) "International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People." To explore this exercise in yearly Jew-bashing, we'll journey over to the horse' s mouth itself, the UN's website and its description of the event.

The date of 29 November was chosen because of its meaning and significance to the Palestinian people.

Such impartiality! The beauty of this is, of course, that on November 29, 1947, the only people on Earth calling themselves the "Palestinian People" were Jews.

On that day in 1947, the General Assembly adopted resolution 181 (II), which came to be known as the Partition Resolution. That resolution provided for the establishment in Palestine of a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State”, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under a special international regime. Of the two States to be created under this resolution, only one, Israel, has so far come into being.

Notice "Arab State" and not "Palestinian State." Because, again, no Arabs in 1947 were walking around calling themselves Palestinians or "The Palestinian People." And why did this "Arab State" never materialize? Well, the UN kind of doesn't tell us. Instead, it skips to this:

The Palestinian people, who now number more than eight million, live primarily in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem; in Israel; in neighbouring Arab States; and in refugee camps in the region.

This is just wonderful. We're told that the General Assembly passed a partition resolution in 1947 calling for an Arab State, which was never implemented, and that, now the "Palestinian People" live in the "Palestinian Territory" (there never was such a thing) that has been "occupied by Israel since 1967" and in so-called "refugee camps" without giving any explanation as to why any of these events took place. We're not told that in 1947, the Arabs tried unsuccessfully to wipe the Jews off the map or that in 1967, Israel conquered this so-called "Palestinian Territory" in a defensive war after Egypt blockaded the country (an act of war) and mobilized its forces in the Sinai. The only reason that Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are in Israeli hands is that Jordan entered the war and began attacking Israeli positions after Israel begged King Hussein to stay out of it. And I've dealt with the refugee issue before, so need to rehash that again here.

And the notion that Judea, Samaria and Gaza constitute "Palestinian Territory" is just mind-boggling. We're talking about land that, in the last 500 years, was controlled by the Turks, British, Egyptians, Jordanians and Israelis. No "Palestinians" on that list.

The International Day of Solidarity has traditionally provided an opportunity for the international community to focus its attention on the fact that the question of Palestine remained unresolved and that the Palestinian people are yet to attain their inalienable rights as defined by the General Assembly, namely, the right to self-determination without external interference, the right to national independence and sovereignty, and the right to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced.

Really, this is like some kind of sick joke. As I believe the Israeli ambassador pointed out at some point, look at the irony and hypocrisy at play here. You have a day commemorating the fact that "question of Palestine remains unresolved," and that the "Palestinian People" don't have a state of their own where they can exercise their "inalienable rights" to "self-determination," "national independence," and "sovereignty". What day did they pick? The very day on which the Arabs REJECTED a partition resolution which aimed to provide them with a state that would have given them all of those things! This is utter lunacy.

The rest of the article is basically filler, detailing all of the activities and speeches to be done "in observance" of this special day. Yes, they seriously wrote "in observance," as if it's some kind of religious holiday with traditions and obligations attached. What nonsense.

This whole exercise flies in the face of what the UN is supposed to be about. The very first provision of the UN Charter states that the purpose of the UN is to:

maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

How this is achieved by openly declaring "solidarity" with one of the parties in a dispute is beyond me. But that's why I'm not a diplomat, I guess.

Incidentally, Sha'i Ben Tekoa does a much better job than I do of dissecting and demolishing this little UN get-together.

A British Islamist Justifies Murdering Children

It's something you have to read to believe (at least if you're not familiar with this type of thing I guess). One woujld think that most people who hate and incite would draw the line at children. Well, not if you're British Islamist Dr. Kamal Al-Hibawi. Let's have a looksie:

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "I condemn the targeting of any civilian, but incidentally, I believe that every Israeli civilian is a future soldier."

This is so typical. The Arabs condemn "terrorism" but what they do against Israel isn't terrorism. They condemn murdering civilians, but, of course, no Israelis are civilians. It's really quite a spectacle. As you can see, even the interviewer is a bit freaked out at this madness:

Interviewer: "He is what?"

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "A future soldier."

Interviewer: "Even if he is two years old?"

Of course at two years old, silly! Here comes the explanation. Better buckle up!

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: "Even if he is a child. A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that [the Arabs] are like contemptible sheep, and that this is a land without a people, and they are a people without a land. They have very strange concepts. In elementary school, they pose the following math problem: 'In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?' This is taught in the Israeli curriculum. What would you say about that? Should a child studying this be considered a civilian? He is a future soldier."

Yep, we know those dastardly Israelis. All they do is walk about talking about how Arabs are sheep, and apes and pigs and -- hey, wait a second!

Jews and Christians – Cursed by Allah and Turned into Apes and Pigs
A textbook for 8^th grade students explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs.Quoting Surat Al-Maida, Verse 60, the lesson explains that Jews and Christians have sinned by accepting polytheism and therefore incurred Allah's wrath.To punish them, Allah has turned them into apes and pigs.

But don't worry. The more "liberal" Dr. Nabil Yassin is going to condemn this insanity . . . sort of:

Dr. Nabil Yassin: "What Kamal said is very dangerous. He is familiar with the case of the Kharijites. He takes us back to the Azariqa, the Kharijites who were most lethal to Muslims. They used to cut open the bellies of pregnant women, because they believed that the child would become an enemy of the Kharijites."[...]

Yassin: "I Do Not Condemn the Child, Who Still Doesn't Know How He Will Kill the Arabs in 20 Years' Time, When He Becomes A Soldier"

"If we, as Arabs and Muslims, condemned every operation targeting civilians anywhere, we would be able to demand that all parties - not only the U.S. - commit themselves to the same position. I condemn the Israeli governments for teaching children such things, but I do not condemn the child, who still doesn't know how he will kill the Arabs in 20 years' time, when he becomes a soldier. We should differentiate... These things lead us back to the root of the problem: Who is a civilian, and who is a soldier, who is being targeted, and who is targeting me? We must not include civilians in the list of military targets."

So the more liberal dude also believes that the Israeli school system teaches their kids that Arabs are contemptible sheep. Fantastic. At least he's not cool with targeting children. Adults? Well, I guess we'll never know.

Abbas to Obama: Make Israel Surrender

Oh, this could be entertaining. Our favorite moderate Dr. Mahmoud Abbas is calling on Obama to implement the so-called "Pan Arab Peace Initiative" that the Saudis first proposed in 2002. Let's have a looksie at how the AP reported it and the little detail that they keep leaving out:.

Abbas, who spoke at an economic conference in the West Bank town of Nablus, also asked Obama to endorse a pan-Arab peace initiative that offers full peace with Israel in return for its withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem.

And that pesky "Right of Return." You can't forget about that, AP.

The "Arab Peace Initiative" was first proposed in 2002 by dozens of Arab countries that do not have ties with Israel. It requires Israel to leave the lands it captured in the 1967 Mideast War.

And to implement the "Right of Return," allowing itself to be flooded with millions of Arabs so that it no longer has a Jewish majority.

"We ask Obama to become immediately involved in the peace process, and to adopt the Arab initiative," Abbas said.

Abbas' call to Obama came after he appealed directly to Israelis by taking out full-page Hebrew-language newspaper ads Thursday that said the Arab initiative would bring peace to the region.

Yes, I think it's universally accepted that the destruction of Israel would bring peace to the Middle East and to the world as a whole.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the chief negotiator with the Palestinians over the past year, has welcomed the plan as a positive gesture, but says its positions on key issues such as final borders, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees are unacceptable.

See that? Five paragraphs in, we learn that the Arab plan has something (though we are not told exactly what) to do with "the fate of the Palestinian refugees." This is awesome reporting. Why Tzipi Livni thinks this ridiculous PR stunt by the Arabs is a "positive gesture" is a total mystery to me.

"Instead of living in an island of peace it will live in an ocean of peace," he said.

An updated way of saying they want to drive the Jews into the sea, I guess.

However, a year of negotiations between Palestinians and Israel has not brought tangible results.

A more accurate statement would be that 15 years of negotiations have not produced tangible results, except lots and lots and lots of terrorism and deaths.

Abbas said Saturday that Israel's actions, such as continued construction of settlements and the West Bank separation barrier, contradict Israel's declared willingness to make peace.

"These acts truly make one wonder whether they (the Israelis) mean peace or not," he said. "Those who want peace don't do this. They don't build a wall or a settlement in our throats ... We are ready to stretch out our hands in peace, but all of these acts leave hatred in one's soul."

This is a joke. The separation barrier was built because the Arabs were inflicting so much terror on Israel and its population, not as part of some nefarious plan to defeat peace in the region. And the construction of settlements in Judea and Samaria have nothing to do with obstructing peace because the Arab goal has never been to create a nice, cuddly little state adjacent to Israel.

In any event, Abbas's words are especially loony and hypocritical given that he has explicitly stated on numerous occasions that the Arabs would never recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

Nice, way to stretch your hand out in peace there, eh, Mahmoud? Spare me.

No Deal Without Control of Jerusalem, PA Says

To put it more specifically, Arab negotiator Ahmed Qurei recently said that "Palestinian leaders will never end their territorial roe with Israel without gaining control of Jerusalem in the deal."

Gaining control of Jerusalem. Notice the language here. There's no limitation to the eastern portion of Jerusalem which Israel liberated in 1967. The PA wants the whole ball of wax, despite its majority-Jewish population. And notice also that there's no talk of compromise here. It's an outright non-negotiable demand serving as a precondition to negotiations. Why can't Israel talk like this? Why can't Israel say, "Listen, Arabs. You want peace? Here's the deal. We get Jerusalem, and you drop this silly Right of Return business. You also repudiate the 1974 Phased Plan and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with a majority Jewish population. Once you agree to that, then we'll start negotiating."

Instead, back in 1993, Israel negotiated with the PLO without any preconditions. They didn't even force the PLO to pretend to amend its covenant, which explicitly calls for Israel's destruction. They continue to negotiate with the PA despite Mahmoud Abbas's statement back in February that the PA would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is silly. But it gets even better.

The negotiator said Palestinian leaders also are concerned Israeli control of the city means Judaism is spreading throughout Jerusalem.

What is this man talking about? Jews have been a plurality in Jerusalem since at least the 1840's. We've been the majority there since at least 1896. So, sorry, Ahmed, if you're worried about "Judiasm spreading throughout Jerusalem," that ship sailed over 150 years ago.

"The Palestinian leadership is decisive (in its stance) not to negotiate and conclude matters with the Israelis without Jerusalem," he said "The postponement of the discussion of this issue is aimed at continuing the Israeli plans to Judaize the holy city, especially the al-Aksa mosque."

Again, I'm just at a total loss here. Qurei seems to be claiming that Israel has plans to "Judaize" the Al-Aksa Mosque. Of course, the reality is that Israel has allowed the Islamic Waqf to control the Al-Aksa Mosque since 1967, and I'm not aware of any plans to change that. Of course, the beautiful irony there is that the Al-Aksa Mosque was the culmination of the Islamization of what had once been an exclusively holy site.

In Praise of Hitler's Moustache

Okay, so today I learned that there's a group out there called the "Egyptian Unique Moustache Association." Apparently they like and respect all types of mustaches, including Hitler's mustache. Hitler's mustache is, like, totally rad because, according to Captain Sayyed Shahada, Hitler "humiliated the most despicable sect in the world. He subdued the people who subdued the whole world."

Of course, this leads one to question exactly how Hitler was able to subdue the Jews if, in fact, the Jews had actually "subdued the whole world," as our facial-haired captain claims. But logical reasoning is apparently not a prerequisite for entry into the prestigious "Egyptian Unique Moustache Association."

Then the good captain goes off on a weird nostalgia trip about the good old days, back when all the cool kids were walking around with Hitler mustaches:

By the way, that kind of moustache is called "11." The generation of this Hitler... When I was little, my father, may he rest in peace, grew that kind of moustache, and so did all his class members. They all had this "11" moustache. That was in the days of Hitler... My father...

You have to love how his voice just trails off at the end. Yes, those genocidal times were good for the Jew-haters of the world. Kids today with their Guitar Hero and their Amy Winehouse -- they just can't appreciate the beauty of the Hitler mustache and the Jew-killing that goes with it.

So it Happened

Kuntar was released. What else is there to really say at this point? My thoughts are laid out here and in the comments section of this fine post. I fear very much that history will look upon this as a very dark day. Ugh!