© David Burton 2009

Is Obama a Friend of Israel?

        Is President Barack Obama a friend of Israel? To date, he and his administration’s actions do not elicit a positive response. His first forays into the Middle East morass “re-warmed the old formula that the ‘settlements’ are the greatest hindrance to peace and that, if they were removed or at least construction of them would completely be stopped, peace would prevail.” Ah, if that were only true - The settlements are not the problem! “The problem is, and has been for almost 100 years, the Arabs’ unwillingness to accept the legitimacy, the ‘right to exist,’ of Israel within any boundaries at all. They have a death wish for Israel. … Whatever Israel might be willing to do, whatever further ‘concessions’ it can be forced or willing to offer, it will not be enough.” (Ref. 1.)

        At a recent G-20 summit, President Obama declared that there would be no more “dictating” to other countries. He further said that we should “forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions” and that henceforth America will “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.” (Ref. 2.)
        “An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone – Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: ‘a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” (Ref. 2.)
        Obama declared in Cairo that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” thereby reinforcing the lie that all the misery and the statelessness of the Palestinians are the fault of Israel and its settlements. What Obama did not say in his Cairo speech was that the real cause of the Palestinians’ misery and statelessness was the result of 60 years of Arab leadership and callousness that gave the Palestinian people corruption, tyranny and forced militarization. The Obama strategy is “not just dishonorable but self-defeating.” (Ref. 2.)

        In Cairo, Obama “pandered to his {Arab} audience. … “What the Brandenburg Gate was for Ronald Reagan in 1987, Cairo University could have been for Obama. Reagan seized the moment, spoke the truth, and helped liberate half a continent. All Obama did was give a speech.” (Ref. 3.)

        “If the goal of the Palestinians were to have their own state and to live in peace, quiet and prosperity alongside of Israel, that could have been accomplished repeatedly in the past 60+ years. But whatever was offered was never enough and was always haughtily rejected.” (Ref. 1.) Our president has either chosen to ignore these facts or he is oblivious to the realities that face him, his administration, Israel and our nation in the Mideast. In either case, he seems to be farther from becoming a friend of Israel than any of our postwar presidents.

        It would appear that Obama has embarked upon a campaign that can only “weaken Israel and force it to make suicidal concessions. … He has decided what will bring lasting peace in the region, and he will impose whatever he has to – despite the fact that the same solution has been tried in the very recent past and has failed miserably.
        "Once Again, Jews are expected to make concrete concessions, dismember their land and jeopardize their existence – in exchange for a repeat (sixth or seventh time …) of {unfulfilled} Arab promises not to use violence, not to incite violence, not to indoctrinate their children with the ideals of violence, etc. Same defective merchandise being sold, this time by a new and charming salesman. … Obama’s Cairo speech will assume it’s proper place with other dramatic Obama addresses – rhetorical , {and} symbols without substance” (Ref. 4.)

        “In his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere.
        “But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.
        “This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.
        “The Arabs got the Cairo speech; {Israel} got silence.” {emphasis mine}
        “A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.”
        “… Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naďveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. …And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners …”
        “… as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze.
        “ … in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the 'settlement blocs') will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility.” (Ref. 1. )

        “ The Obama administration’s … efforts to prevent Jews from building houses in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria has resulted in the majority of Israelis believing Obama is biased toward the Palestinian Arab side, with barely a third believing him to be neutral.
        “While presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and the State Department demand Israel stop building housing in East Jerusalem in order not to prejudice the outcome of final negotiations, The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem openly treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian Arab territory.”
        “Clearly the Obama administration has no problem prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations on the side of the terrorist groups they continue to fund; what they do have a problem with is Israel asserting its own rights in any way.”
        "Israelis understand Obama’s agenda and its implications all too well. Obama’s sympathies have been all too obviously on display, and while some American Jews may choose to delude themselves, Israelis don’t have that luxury.” {emphasis mine}
        “ … terrorist leaders in the West Bank and Gaza will never be held accountable to any standard.” Instead, Israel will be blamed “for ‘intransigence’ when there are attempts to nail down points in negotiations” and Israel will be accused “of not wanting peace when its diplomats merely ask that Fatah and Hamas recognize Israel and abandon terrorism.”
        The Arabs and the Arab terrorists do not want peace and any concession from Israel is only perceived as another step on the path to the destruction of the State of Israel. Gaza is a prime example. The time for the iron fist has long since passed, even though American diplomats and President Obama refuse to accept the truth. “It is only when Israel stopped making concessions and began building walls, when Israeli tanks smashed into Arafat’s Muqata, and when checkpoints were securely manned that the bloodshed began to diminish. Now Obama is eager to turn back the clock and begin extracting more concessions and empowering the same terrorists who were responsible for so much horror.
        “Obama may be eager to mediate between Israel and the terrorists, but Israel first needs someone to mediate its talks with Obama.” Even before that happens, Obama needs to shed his naiveté (or his biases) and recognize the realities of the mid-East politics. Concessions are looked upon by the Arabs as signs of weakness and indications that more concessions can be obtained. What they do respect is firmness and intestinal fortitude.
        “ If the only use [Obama] has for Israel is as a tool for winning Muslim favor by extracting from it territorial concessions for terrorists - as the Obama administration seems bent on doing - then maybe it’s time for both nations to move on.” (Ref. 5.)

        “The U.S. may be Israel’s closest ally, But President Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze - including those for natural growth purposes - disappoints us. We are equally chagrined by Obama’s lack of pressure on the Palestinians to renounce terror and revoke their charter calling for Israel’s destruction.” (Ref. 6.)

        According to a top Palestinian Authority (PA) official, “The Obama administration made clear to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas … that the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. . . . Jerusalem officials are concerned the Obama administration intends to abrogate written pledges made by President Bush by which Israel would keep main West Bank settlement blocs in a future deal with the Palestinians. . . Obama reportedly is looking to get out of a deal agreed to by his predecessor.” (Ref. 7.)

        One could ask the President what has transpired to change his position expounded at a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago when he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination to the recent position he expounded in Cairo. In his Chicago speech, President Obama said "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States." (Ref. 8.) That’s quite a different position then from the current demand that Israel stop building housing in East Jerusalem and that it should freeze all construction in Judea and Samaria. But, of course, that was then and this is now. A year later, again at AIPAC when campaigning for the presidency, Obama said “any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, secure in its borders, and Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided” (Ref. 9.) {emphasis mine}. Obama’s current demand for Israel to stop building housing in East Jerusalem sounds like a direct reversal of that position. My understanding is that an undivided Jerusalem includes North Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, South Jerusalem, and West Jerusalem, i.e., all of Jerusalem. You are now implying that East Jerusalem may not be a part of Jerusalem, meaning that Jerusalem will again be divided as it was from 1948 till 1967 after Jordan captured East Jerusalem. As one observer has commented, President Obama “specializes in hiding anti-Israel policy under the cloak of ‘evenhandedness.’ ” (Ref. 10.)

        Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, in a recent interview, commenting on President Obama’s apparent about-faces on his policy toward Israel said that “His {current} position is inexplicable to me. It violates what he said during the campaign. It violates what he promised when he went before AIPAC and gave them assurances that he would not make any major changes in policies that would threaten Israel’s security. … I guess we should just come to believe that everything he said in the campaign no longer can be held to him because he’s not been very faithful so far in keeping his promises. … One of the reasons for my reservations concerning the whole idea of the two-state solution and dividing Jerusalem and ceding land is because as I look at that policy over the past thirty years it simply hasn’t worked. Every time Israel gives away land for peace, they get neither land nor peace. They give up land but they don’t get peace. … That to me is making it even more difficult to explain the Obama Administration on ‘let’s concede more.’ Why concede more to a terrorist group that doesn’t believe Israel should even exist? I am totally bewildered by that point of view.” (Ref. 41.)

        “In stark contrast to the Bush administration, President Obama’s staff is not coordinating its policy on Iran or the greater Middle East with Israel and has not been informing the Jewish state of its plans or recent diplomatic developments in the Mideast.” This is clearly no way for a friendship between our two nations to be maintained. A source in the Israeli president’s office said “Right now there is next to no communication coming to us from the White House.” (Ref. 12.)

        Further evidence of this lack of communication and coordination came as a result of a statement by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller on May 5, 2009, when she bracketed Israel with India, Pakistan and North Korea and called for Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “Gottemoeller’s statement caught the Israelis by surprise. There was no prior coordination, and Israeli officials say they only heard about it on the news.” (Ref. 13. ) “Yet no mention was made in the assistant secretary’s remarks of the fact that Iran – which regularly threatens to obliterate Israel and which, if not already there, is fast approaching nuclear military capacity – is a signatory to the treaty and obviously is not complying. What exactly are the Obama folks thinking … ?” (Ref. 14.)

        The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act passed by Congress in 1995 declared that it is “the policy of the United States that Jerusalem continue as the undivided capital of Israel {as} it had been since the 1967 six-day war.” The act further required that the American Embassy be “relocated to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999.” If not, there would be “a drastic reduction on the amount of money the State Department could spend abroad.” However, under the so-called waiver provision of the statute, the president could suspend the spending limitation provisions for six-month periods if he certified that the restrictions “would undermine U.S. interests abroad. … Both Presidents Clinton and Bush regularly invoked the six month waivers- … yet invariably, the certifications included a statement saying: ‘My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.’ … In his first invocation, … President Obama omitted this statement." {emphasis mine} (Ref. 15.) Is this the action of a friend of Israel?

        An Israeli official in Washington reported that “Strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States has faded under the administration of President Barack Obama. … With Bush, we had a firm rule that neither country would surprise the other. … But now there’s not even the basic commitment.” (Ref. 16.) Is Obama a friend of Israel? You be the judge. Time will tell if your judgment is correct. But time may not be on Israel’s side nor on the side of the United States.

        “At the very least, if not fully articulating the notion that he is bent on reading the riot act to Israel, President Obama is certainly allowing that perception to grow. Surely nothing he has said can lead anyone to believe he intends to adopt an approach to Israel that is more supportive than what he has thus far exhibited.
        “To the contrary, the president’s full court press for Israel’s immediate cessation of all settlement activity – While Hamas remains in power in Gaza, Palestinian anti-Israel incitement continues in full force and the Palestinian Authority insists on a full right of return for Palestinian refugees as well as all of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem – is a remarkable departure from agreements reached with the U.S. over the past eight tears and sends a dangerous signal to the Palestinians about the need to negotiate in good faith.” (Ref. 17.)

Can American Middle East Policy Succeed?

        “For decades, American Middle East policy has been set according to a Big Lie; that two sides, Jew and Muslim, were equally desirous of peaceful coexistence. This is demonstrably false. Only Israel desires peaceful coexistence with the Arabs; the Arabs only desire Israel’s annihilation. That’s why the ‘peace’ American policy continually chases can never be more than a ‘process’ - a process, in fits and starts, that comes closer to its own hideous conclusion with every successive Administration.” (Ref. 18.) The current Obama administration has put on its blinders and rose-colored glasses and continues down this failed path that ultimately leads nowhere. American foreign policy with respect to Mid East Arabs must cease to be the carrot-and-stick approach and instead focus on a policy of the stick, i.e., punish the Arab extremists whenever they fail to live up to an agreement, when they refuse to bargain in good faith, and when they demonstrate a distain for the rights of Israel and Jews to even exist.

        For 16 years now, American policy makers have been advocating the 2-state solution with Jews and Arabs living side-by-side in harmony. Bitter experience has proven the idea to be totally impracticable. “In today’s world, the slim sliver of territory between the River Jordan and Mediterranean is just too small for two states.” (Ref. 19.) A divided Palestinian state of Gaza and the West Bank makes even less sense.

        “Today, under the Obama administration – as yesterday under the Bush administration – U.S. Policy toward the Arab war on Israel is largely based on the notion that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction are genuine moderates who reject terrorism and accept Israel’s right to exist, and are therefore committed to building a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
        “But we can no longer ignore the fact that Abbas and Fatah do not accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The idea that they do has always been an illusion – which Abbas has recently confirmed.”
        Statements made in public by Abbas include: “I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish state, call it what you will.” “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.” Reinforcing the Abbas statements are the remarks of other senior Fatah figures: Muhammad Dahlan - “I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today.” Abu Ahmed – “The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco … There is not change in our official position. Fatah as a movement never recognized Israel.”
        To this very day, the Fatah constitution calls for the “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” (Article 12) and for terrorism as “a strategy and not a tactic … this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished.” (Article 19)
        “How much more evidence is required before Western policy makers – including officials in the Obama administration – and the Western media take notice? . . . There is widespread unwillingness to acknowledge these facts because few wish to face the implications of doing so – the implication being that the Arab war on Israel is not about to end, no matter what Israel or the U.S. does or does not do. . . . Unless this occurs, all the diplomatic flurry for a peace settlement negotiated with Abbas’s PA will simply be an illusion built on sand.” (Ref. 20.)

        The current American (and European) policy of trying to force unrealistic concessions from Israel while demanding essentially nothing from their Arab counterparts continues to be doomed to failure. When Israel is threatened by The European Union’s foreign and security chief with the following statement: “let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an [Israeli] government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very different.” and which is very similar to a statement expressed by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on her recent visit to Israel, one can only scratch one’s head and ask what have these people been smoking for the past half century? Who gives them the right to attempt to dictate Israel’s borders and demand that Israel voluntarily turn over parts of its homeland to foreign intruders? Wake up: “…the aim of the Arab nations is not to create a new state of Palestine, rather to destroy the Jewish State in its entirety.” To support the Arab demands is to be a “party to an effort to destroy Israel.”
        As an alternative to the unrealistic European and American demands on Israel, it is suggested that “the United States and the European Union … open their countries to provide homes and occupations for the foreign Arab elements that live in” {the Land of Israel}. These countries can then re-educate those whose lives are dedicated to terror and destruction to accept citizenship … and become loyal and productive citizens therein. Only when they are forced to give up on their dream of destroying Israel will there be the hope for true peace.” (Ref. 21.)

        How can any sane person expect Israel to hold meaningful negotiations with a political party and its leader who proclaim that they do not recognize Israel at all and whose constitution declares their intention to uproot and demolish Israel completely? Articles 19 and 22 of the Fatah constitution declare that “ … this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated …” and “We oppose any political solution offered …” (Ref. 22. ) Remember that Fatah is the political party which runs the Palestinian Authority (PA) and that Mahmoud Abbas is both the Chairman of Fatah and the President of the Palestinian Authority. Does anyone believe that it’s possible to negotiate with this man - someone who does not permit any school, organization or entity within the PA to include the State of Israel on any map, and someone whose official stationery shows all of Israel as Palestine?

        American foreign policy towards Israel and the Arabs needs to be rethought and the following fundamental questions re-examined: “Are we empowering those who despise Israel and the united States? Are we purchasing good will for the United States by tossing Israel to the wolves? Do we grasp the Middle East psychology that interprets accommodation and compromise as weakness?” (Ref. 23.)

Will More Israeli Concessions Solve the Middle East Problems?

        “ ‘An end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not solve the problems of the Middle East,’ says former Israeli chief of staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon. ‘Israeli concessions will only strengthen extremist Islam.’ ” Some wrongly believe “ ‘that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will bring stability to the Middle East.’ … ‘Some also believe “that the core problem is Israel’s occupation [of Judea and Samaria] and that a two-state solution will solve the 100-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ ” These are two mistaken assumptions. “The Palestinians have no interest in a two-state solution with Israel … ‘They have never agreed to any partition of the land. They objected to the Peel Commission proposal in 1937, and to the UN’s plan in 1947, and again in 2000 in Camp David. Arafat’s rejection then of Ehud Barak’s generous offer [of 95-98 percent of Judea and Samaria] and the war he launched instead showed that his goal was to prevent a two-state solution and, especially, the recognition of Israel.
        “ ‘The fact that Kassams continue to fly from Gaza also prove this. Hamas has made it quite clear as well: they are interested in one Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.’
        “Similarly, ‘The objective of Hizbullah is not the liberation of southern Lebanon - but rather the destruction of Israel. World War III is currently underway; a clash of civilizations between the West and radical extremist Islam.’ ” {emphasis mine} (Ref. 24.)

Where does Obama’s Policy Towards Israel Leave American Jewry?

        American Jewry has a history dating back to FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and earlier of very liberal, leftist leanings. Since the New Deal, America’s Jewish voters have been solidly in the liberal Democratic camp.

        American Jews also have a history of supporting idealistic Utopian dreams even when the dream becomes a nightmare. A very large number of American Jews bought into the Soviet Communist message of universal socialist equality and blindly followed the Communist Party message and Joseph Stalin throughout the 1930’s and most of the 1940’s, even after most clear-eyed persons came to see the lie of Communism and the evil that was Joseph Stalin. It takes a very long span of time and an enormous amount of irrefutable evidence to make American Jewry change direction.

        “As individuals, most Jews who voted for Obama last November are content to ignore Israel’s agony in the face of U.S. pressure because they still trust the president on other issues.” However, there is beginning to be erosion of that trust as the American people express concern over Obama’s health care plan and the enormous and growing fiscal debt. “They ignore the threats to Israel’s safety and security and are blind to America’s infringing on Israel’s sovereignty as a free and democratic nation. … If this continues – and there’s little to indicate it won’t – {American} Jews will have to make painful and difficult choices between their support for Israel and their preference for other policies of this administration. This choosing will play out during the 2010 congressional elections.” (Ref. 25.)

        This past July, “President Obama sat down for a highly orchestrated meeting with some leaders of Jewish organizations.” Comments from these leaders gave the “impression that they, and by extension the Jewish community were acquiescing in the administration’s” Mideast policy. “Conspicuously absent in the aftermath of … {the} meeting … was any reference to past commitments made by the U.S. regarding permissible Israeli construction – commitments on which Israel relied in making decisions of state. … It behooves Jewish organizational heads to take stock of what their warm and fuzzy relationship with Mr. Obama has wrought – and to keep in mind that a president’s fortunes can fall as quickly as they rise.” (Ref. 26.)

        “American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama, the Candidate of Change, despite credible warnings and ample evidence that he would obsessively seek to create a Palestinian state at Israel’s expense and ‘engage’ nuclear-arming, Islamist Iran.” Well Change has come and still, “Obama’s support in the Jewish community seems rock solid.” But, “The time is fast approaching for American Jewry to decide between loyalty to a political party that bears no resemblance to that which their parents and grandparents adored for generations and their professed love of Israel whose security, along with the security of the United States, is being undermined by everything Obama is presently doing, has done, and plans to do.” With whom will American Jews stand – “America and Israel or Obama and the Democratic party? (Ref. 27.) “The question remains: What will be the tipping point for Jewish Democrats at which it will be impossible for them to go on pretending they did not elect the most hostile president to Israel since the first George Bush?” (Ref. 28.) Obama has not turned out to be a conventional liberal Democrat who is also willing to be a faithful friend of Israel as many, if not most, Jewish Democrats expected when they pulled the lever for him. … Obama is not a man who understands or respects mainstream Jewish sensibilities” (Ref. 29.)

Do the Arabs Really Want Peace?

        Do the Arabs really want peace? My answer to this question was given previously in two articles on this website: Do the Arabs really want peace with Israel? (Ref. 30.) and in Middle East Reality. (Ref. 31.) I urge those interested to read both of these articles. Little if anything has changed since I wrote them in 2005 and 2008.

        President Barack Obama’s apparent policy toward Israel and its Arab neighbors has been long on rhetoric but short on reality! Obama’s Peace Plan won’t work! Why? Because the Arabs are not truly interested in peace with Israel, except maybe in terms of the peace of the grave. His peace plan won’t work because “it assumes that Arabs are interested in accommodation. No matter what concessions Israel makes, … they will not be enough as long as Israel itself remains in any form.” History bears out the truth of this fact. As President Obama has done, “Focusing on eliminating settlements is not the real issue.” “The struggle is not over dividing territory, but whether Israel deserves to exist at all. The reason that issue is not on the table is because no Arab leader has or will accept Israel’s right to exist …” {emphasis mine} The next war will not be over settlements, or Jerusalem, or a second Arab Palestinian state of any kind. It has been and will continue to be over Israel’s right to exist altogether.” (Ref. 32.) Until president Obama understands and accepts this basic truth, his attempts to broker a peace accord are fruitless, but perhaps even more important, he is endangering the peace and security of the Israeli nation.

        Can’t the Arab moderates instill the desire for peace into the Arab peoples? The “ ‘moderate’ Palestinian ‘partners in peace’ are still openly dedicated only to a single Arab state. Israel does not even exist on the ‘moderate maps of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah. As for the still unrevised Fatah constitution, Abbas’ … intentions for Israel are clearly identifiable as Crimes Against Humanity. … Like Hamas, Fatah has plans for Israel that constitute genocide according to authoritative and unassailable standards of pertinent international norms. … Mahmoud Abbas’ only solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict is therefore the all too-familiar ‘final’ one.” i.e., the elimination of Israel and its entire Jewish population. His Palestine and the entire Arab world would then be essentially Juden frei. The Arabs only want more and more. “As should have been learned long ago, the smell of carrion only inflames the vulture.” ‘Palestine’ will only lead Israel to the peace of the grave. (Ref. 33.)

        Arab extremists have demonstrated that peace with Israel and the West is not worthy of their consideration. American and Western idealists cannot and will not accept the fact that these Arab extremists have a view of life and the world that is not in agreement with Western ideals and mores. “Instead of attending to the more difficult responsibility of facing the challenges of a living world, the terrorist indulges in a ritual of martyrdom with the intention of being rewarded for doing so … in the afterlife.” Arab terrorists do not act and behave in what westerners consider to be a rational fashion. Unfortunately, too many politicians and diplomats cannot or will not accept this reality. For the westerner, preservation of life is a primary goal. “For the Islamo-Fascist, death is the ultimate goal.” - whether theirs or ours is irrelevant. (Ref. 24.)

        The media “has long promoted Fatah — in contrast to Hamas — as the party of Palestinian political moderates seeking peace with Israel, while glossing over evidence to the contrary. … The {recent Fatah Congress} conference provided ample evidence that Fatah members have not abandoned their founding mission:

• They still refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state and insist on the right to resettle millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants within Israel's pre-67 borders.
• They insist on the evacuation of Jews from Jerusalem and land captured by Israel in 1967.
• They adhere to the option of waging armed attacks against Israel if peace negotiations do not yield what they want.
• They continue to endorse the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – responsible for numerous suicide bombings and terrorist attacks– as their armed wing.
• They continue to glorify terrorists and vilify Israel.”