Middle East Peace = Peaceful independent Palestinian Nation

Peaceful settlement to the Middle East Israel/Palestine Issue is the ultimate solution which can bring the Middle East to the Peaceful era. Currently millions of Palestinians are refugees living in horrible and dangerous conditions within Palestine/Israel and around the neighbouring countries as well as around the world.

In reality, this issue is not about religion or faith, its about the nation/land and geopolitics. If we see closely, Jews and Muslims who are the major component of this issue are very close to each other in faith and from the books of the same god.

Every religion have some elements which can be extreme and distort the religion for their personal or sect benefits. We need to look at the broad arena and see that they are so many things which are common then different.

So, the dispute/war is about about land and nation. By refusing to give back the occupied land to the palestine will not bring peace to Israel nor to palestine and middle east in general. Ultimately, this bring the major issue for the world peace as we see it today.

Let’s ask the following from the parties to bring the ultimate/major solution to this problem:

1. Since Israel is the Occupying force, they have the duty to bring peaceful end to the occupation not drag the ultimate solution for next 10-20 years. Its not in their best interest as they know it (hopefully).

2. For Palestinian, to bring about the end to the hostility and accept the 1967 borders as the final boundaries of the palestine and settle all the issues once with this state. No more this or that issue, just a state(independent) in 1967 borders for all palestinians including refugees period. Let Israel have the Israel for current citizans of that state, no refugees please.

At the end, Jews as your brothers and are from the books you beleive in, they should be able to prosper and florish in the land of Ibrahim/Mosus. At the same time, Jews need to remember that the Palestinians per history gave refuge to Mosus when he needed and made him part of their people. Married within their people. So, let’s not kill those people who gave refuge and provided help to your prophet and the same prophet is the prophet of Muslims as well. Let’s get together and solve this problem and bring peace to the lands of prophets. Otherwise, god will bring his punishment for all the people of books on the lands of middle east.

~Peace Out

Since then the vetren journalist has apologised and has announced her immediat retirement under lot of pressure and criticism. She has been outcasted by her pears and eveybody else.This is the reward for socalled freedom of the speech. Everything under the world and above the world God, prophets, are up for expression of freedom of speech, but nobody dare touch the Israel and Jews. I wonder why? This is sad day as this vetran Journalist had to retire under such circumstances.

Alan Hart

Most Jews of the world (and probably many Gentiles) believe that Zionism is the return of Jews to the land promised to them by God.

At the risk of offending some readers of all faiths for saying so, I must confess, and do so cheerfully, that I don’t buy this concept because the Gentile me does not believe in the God of organized, institutional religions.

So, I say to myself, no God, no promise to Jews (or anybody else). In my perception of the scheme of things, God is the potential for good inside each and every one of us. God so defined is a prisoner within each of us and our prime task is to liberate this prisoner. But let’s put that to one side.

The Jews who “returned” in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. They were converts to Judaism long after the end of the Hebrew conquest and short-lived domination of much of Canaan, the name as in the Bible by which Palestine was first known to the world. They therefore had no legitimate claim on the land.

The Jews who did have a legitimate claim, probably not more than about 10,000 at the time of Zionism’s first dishonest mission statement in 1897, were the direct descendants of the Israelites who stayed in place on the land through time. They regarded themselves as Palestinians, and they were fiercely opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise because they feared it would make them as well as the incoming alien Jews enemies of the Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Muslims.

Also true is that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, most Jews of the world were not at all interested in Zionism’s colonial enterprise and many were opposed to it.

The most informed and thoughtful of those who did express their opposition believed that Zionism was morally wrong. They also feared that Zionism’s colonial enterprise would lead to unending conflict. But most of all they feared that Zionism, if it was allowed by the major powers to have its way, would one day provoke anti-Semitism. Which is precisely what is happening today. (Hence the title of my book, ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS).

In reality it is how the Zionists created their state – a Zionist not a Jewish state – that best defines what Zionism actually is.

Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing – a pre-planned process that saw three-quarters of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine dispossessed of their homes, their land and their rights.

Zionism asserts that its state was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. That is propaganda nonsense. The truth can be summarized as follows.

* In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

* By the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a recommendation – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

* The General Assembly’s recommendation never went to the Security Council for consideration because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

* So the partition plan was vitiated (becameinvalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that the Zionist state had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those Zionism had dispossessed of their land and their rights.In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

What is a Zionist today?

Short answer: One, not necessarily a Jew, who (to quote Balfour) supports the Zionist state of Israel “right or wrong” and who cannot or will not admit that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism – a wrong that must be acknowledged and then corrected on terms acceptable to the Palestinians if there is ever to be peace and the countdown to catastrophe for all is to be stopped. The Arab word for the catastrophe of the original dispossession of the Palestinians is Nakba.

In my view, Zionism’s Nakba denial is as obscene and as evil as denial of the Nazi holocaust.

One thing nobody can deny is the effectiveness of Zionism’s propaganda machine. Zionism’s spin doctors probably learned from the Nazis that the bigger the lies and the more frequently they are told, the more likely it is that they will be believed in the mainly Gentile, Judeo-Christian or Western world; and all the more so when the mainstream media is terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all.

The biggest of all of Zionism’s propaganda lies is the one which asserts that Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail in my book, Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover which allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most, in North America and Western Europe, with presenting its aggression (often state terrorism) as self-defense, and itself as the victim when actually it was, and is, the oppressor.

The companion propaganda lie is that Israel never had Arab partners for peace.

Zionism has two hallmarks.

One is self-righteousness of a most extraordinary kind. In 1986 this self-righteousness was described by Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former Director of Israeli Military Intelligence, as “the biggest real danger” to the Jewish state.

The other hallmark is a shocking and awesome arrogance of military and economic power and the influence the latter buys, most critically in the U.S. Congress where what passes for democracy is for sale to the highest bidders.

On the matter of truth as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, I hope the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is right: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” If that’s true, Zionism not only can be defeated but will be.

Footnote:

This article was written as one in a series with other authors under the title ZIONISM UNMASKED.
To read more click below…
Zionism, a terrifying nightmare

The most challenging task for Jews in this upcoming decade is to create a joint and coordinated effort to improve relations with Muslims, New York Orthodox Rabbi Marc Schneier said earlier this month.

Schneier, who has focused a great amount of his social activities on creating a network which promotes understanding between the two religions, criticized the Jewish organizations in the United States for their “obsessive” quest to stop the declaration of Pope Pius XII as a saint.
“If they [the Jewish organizations] focused only some of their energy on improving relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities, the situation would be much better and more promising,” Schneier said.

“I don’t want to diminish the importance of cultivating good relations between the Jews and the Catholic Church,” he added, “but this issue has been dealt with and has greatly progressed.”

“The central and most crucial challenge that faces the Jewish people with regards to inter-religious relations in the next decade, is to find a way to diminish the misunderstandings between the Muslims and the Jews around the world,” he went on to say.

Schneier also added that the activities which took place in synagogues and mosques in the U.S. over the past month proved that there are people from both religions who were willing to promote understanding.

To raed more please click below..
U.S. rabbi strives for improved relations with Muslims Haaretz news

By Amal Abu Zeidan

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel are fraught with tension, and racism is part of it whether we admit it or not. Racial tension is not a product of the conflict but the latter sustains and strengthens it. Needless to say, even in places where peace dwells, racism is alive and well.

Many organizations in Israel have warned of the rise in expressions of racism by Jews towards Arabs in the past few years. The failure to adequately address this phenomenon by Israeli society as a whole and the state in particular, demonstrates why this fact should not come as a surprise.

The purpose of racism is control – preserving the privileges of the dominant group – and it demonstrates and symbolizes the oppression and negation of the “other”. The dominant group maintains its control over the centers of power – public policy and decision-making – and determines the distribution of physical and even spiritual resources. This is extremely dangerous since in almost every society there is a wide range of different cultures and nations that represent the “other”. Overt and covert racism exists also within Arab society where ethnic and religious identity has become key to the day-to-day running of society, to the process of accepting and rejecting those perceived as “other”.

There are many reasons for Jewish racism against Arabs. Among other things, it is linked to processes that Arab society in Israel has undergone since the establishment of the state when the Arab minority found itself severed from the rest of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation. The relations between the State of Israel and its Palestinian citizens were formed in the shadow of the tensions that marked Israel’s relationship with the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular. The Palestinian citizens of Israel found themselves in a complex situation where, on the one hand, they wanted to maintain their links to their people and nation, but also wished to be integrated as citizens. This was not always welcomed by the Israeli establishment or Jewish society, large parts of which were suspicious of the Arabs, and even exhibited noticeable signs of racism in both private and public life.

This dynamic has reached new records in the last few years. A report by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel from 2007 shows an increase in the expressions of racism against the Arab citizens of Israel: 55 per cent want them to emigrate, 78 per cent oppose their sitting in the government and 75 per cent of our high school students think that they are dirty and stupid. The report also showed that in 2006 there was an increase of 26 per cent in racist acts against Arabs, from verbal expressions through discriminatory policies to police violence. In light of political developments in the past year, it can be assumed that since the above mentioned research was carried out this trend has only become worse.

Many Jews view the rise in racism against the Arab citizens of Israel as a justified response to acts of solidarity by sections of the Arab public and leadership with the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Such acts are considered tantamount to active cooperation with the enemy. This misunderstanding of the other side shows that what one side views as natural behavior, the other side sees as unnatural and even traitorous.

It is important to mention that there are a number of organizations and individuals, Jews and Arabs alike, who promote human rights and believe that relations between Arabs and Jews should be rooted in equality and mutual respect. They work tirelessly in the struggle to overcome racism. Although their impact on society at large is not substantial, it is important that these activities exist.

The racism within Arab society in Israel manifests itself differently from that which characterizes Arab-Jewish relations, but it too is alive and kicking – both overtly and covertly. Covert racism over the past few years has become exceedingly dangerous, especially in the eyes of people who believe in liberal values and freedom, and who must confront those whose rejection of these ideals is manifested in their outlook and way of life. Covert racism cannot be tangibly measured but it is expressed in the discourse of a society comprised of many religions and ethnicities and in the way members of this society relate to each other. Albert Memmi, in his famous book Racism, notes that one of the ways to deal with racism is to develop moral behavior. Most importantly, he adds, it must come “from a choice and from a place of wanting it” – easier said than done, especially in the complex reality of conflict such as the Arab-Jewish situation in Israel.

Moral behavior is not hereditary but is acquired in a process, which is brought to life both in informal education – at home and in the community – and in formal education, at school and in other institutions. Therefore, humanistic values and moral behavior must be imparted to all people and at an early age, both within the official educational system and at home, before racism begins to takes hold.

In addition to education, it is essential to hold joint activities for Arabs and Jews: at the public level with condemnation of all signs of racism by influential public officials; at the parliamentary and legislative level with laws against racism that are implemented in full; in the media, with a platform provided for programmes about racism; and at the communal level by creating joint activities for Arabs and Jews of all ages and in all subjects with assistance from civil society organisations. Optimism is not the sole driver of our actions, and we are not under the illusion that racism will vanish from the face of the earth, but it is in our power – in cooperation with enlightened Jews and Arabs – to decrease its level in society and to keep its damage to a minimum. And the sooner we do it the better.

Amal Abu Zeidan is active in various peace organizations and involved in educational programmes that promote democratic values. He comes from the village of Maghar in the Galilee and lives in Jerusalem. 
© Common Ground News Service

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Eric Cantor.
Photo: Courtesy: United States Congress

You are coming here, you will be speaking to all the Israeli leaders. What do you think Israel should do now to move the diplomatic process forward?

The congressional delegations that will be going over the next couple of weeks are not there to dictate to Israel what to do. Israel has a democratically elected government, it understands more than any how to protect its citizens, and that should be the first goal: that we should be there in support of our democratic ally in securing its population.

We, as members of Congress, and as those of us who believe very strongly in the US-Israel relationship, those of us who believe that Israel is a vital pillar in our national security strategy, are there to try and see how we can further and enhance that relationship.

Has the assessment that Israel is a “vital pillar” in the US national security strategy been eroded over the last few months?

I think there are certainly some signs to indicate that there could be a shift in the policy, which is why we are going to Israel. Those of us in the Republican delegation, and I believe we have many counterparts on the other side of the aisle, feel very strongly that there should not be a shift in the US-Israel relationship, and that is why we are going to demonstrate our commitment to continuing to strengthen the relationship.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Is there daylight between Israel and the US on Iran? There was speculation here that one of the reasons Gates was here this week was to rein Israel in on Iran. Are we on the same page, or are there big differences?

I’m hopeful we are on the same page. I know the vice president has made some comments that have indicated that he feels we should not dictate to Israel what it should do.

I definitely support that statement that it is not US policy to dictate to our democratic ally what it can and cannot do to defend itself, especially against an existential threat being posed by a country in the region. So I’m continuing to work with my colleagues on the Hill to make sure that we do not have any daylight between our two countries.

Can you envision any scenario where the US would take military action against Iran?

That is something that the administration is continuing to weigh. I’ve always been a proponent of making it clear that all options remain on the table. It is very important for us to make sure that is the case, especially as this administration has adopted a policy of engagement with Teheran.

Regarding Syria. What do you think of Washington’s policy of engagements there?

I clearly think that what we must keep our eyes focused on with Syria is that when moves are made in the hopes of trying to facilitate discussions between Syria and Israel, there is a clear understanding of what the expectations are, and that we are at least sensing that we are getting something in return. If we are going to allow for export of technology, if we are going to provide the regime in Syria with some confidence politically, we have to make sure that we are getting something – and that Damascus is giving up something – in return. The status quo is not acceptable as far as Syria is concerned.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

Has Israel made any effort of outreach to you or any other Republicans?

The new ambassador has visited me over the last week. He is obviously new here in Washington and in that capacity is making the rounds on both sides of the aisle.

Is there any link between Obama’s domestic difficulties, the difficulties getting support for his health care plan for example, and what seems to be here a bit of a softening in recent days of the tone toward Israel?

I think, looking form outside into the administration, there is always an awareness of the deep-rooted support for Israel that is present in the US population. I think there have been many of us who have been outspoken about reported pressure being focused on the Netanyahu administration and the Israeli government. So I would have to think that would factor in at some point into the administration’s tone and demeanor in its discussions with Israel.

Much has been made here about the J Street phenomenon, and how Obama has seemed to enlist that organization and say, “Look these are also voices in the Jewish community; it is not a monolithic community; they present an opinion, and that is one that I reflect.”

J Street is clearly outside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. Absolutely. Equally, there is not a monolithic position in any community, much less the American Jewish community, but I would definitely say that J Street is outside the mainstream of the America Jewish community in terms of its positions.

Then why is its profile so high?

I think obviously there are a lot of folks involved with J Street who are very supportive of the White House.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post
Do you think Jews who support Israel and voted for Obama made a mistake?

I don’t think there is any question there is a growing concern in the American Jewish community regarding what is reported to be the voices coming out of the Obama administration.

Could this be a factor in next year’s election? Do you envision some Jews gravitating to the GOP because of this?

The American Jewish community is not unlike the larger American population. We are very affected by the economic situation, and obviously in America today the economy is the first priority as far as the electorate is concerned.

But how about the Jews, do you think because of Obama’s stance on Israel they might say they are going to vote Republican in the next election?

We are a long way off from the election; I wouldn’t want to even delve into that. But I can say this: The strength of the US-Israel relationship, the survival of Israel as a Jewish state, its legitimacy in the eyes of thee world, is obviously of the utmost concern to many in the American Jewish community.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there were no informal agreements with Israel on settlement construction. [Former deputy national security adviser] Elliott Abrams said there were. Why is Abrams the only guy coming out on this?

I can’t answer that question. I don’t know why Elliott came out. Obviously he was there; he was very involved in orchestrating the discussion surrounding that letter. I would say this: I support the thrust of the Bush letter. I think the majority of the members of Congress support the thrust of the Bush letter. And again, looking at the big picture here, the priority and focus of our foreign policy should be the impending nuclearization of Iran.

Is Obama leaning too heavily on Israel?

The continued focus on telling Israel what to do, without seemingly requiring steps to be taken on the part of Palestinians and the Arab states, is very troubling to me.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’