Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor Sign-up
Posted on 10/04/2011 7:34:07 AM PDT by Former Fetus
The Palestinians are in the process of seeking sovereignty from the United Nations, but in doing so, they are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel—including during the talks involving then-president Bill Clinton and then-prime minister Ehud Barak in 2000 and 2001. Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less.
It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price—even if it's only a symbolic price—for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war. If the Palestinians were to achieve a return to the status quo prior to Jordan's attack on Israel in June of 1967, then military aggression will not have been punished, it will have been rewarded. That's why Security Council Resolution 242—which was essentially the peace treaty that resulted from the end of the Six Day War—intended for Israel to retain territory necessary to give it secure boundaries.
--SNIP--
If, on the other hand, the UN were to reward nearly a century of rejectionism and violence by simply turning the clock back to 1967 (or 1947), it will be encouraging more cost-free rejectionism and violence. The Palestinians must pay a price for the thousands of lives their rejectionism and violence have caused. The price must not be so heavy as to preclude peace, but it must be heavy enough to deter war.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The “Palestinians” will never recognize Israel. Never. They don’t want peace, they don’t want to make sacrifices for peace. They want victory and the destruction of the Jewish state.
The Arabs don’t want them because they’re useful anti-Israel pawns. They’d be better off throwing down their swords, renouncing terrorism, and accepting peace with Israel, where they’d get a much better deal than they have now. But they won’t. Their Arab string-pullers are going to use them as suicidal shock troops to destroy Israel.
}:-)4
“Will the U.N. actually reward mass murder?”
You mean again?
Talking about the 12th Imam, I just realized something very interesting. Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Makkah, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Makkah. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Allah's Sword. Half of his army will come from Yemen (can you say "Anwar al- Awlaki") and half from Iraq (have you ever worried about Iran and Iraq coming together to form the "nucleus" of the new Caliphate?). Interesting indeed.
Surely, this is a rhetorical question
I believe that quote is attributable to Leon Uris in his novel “Exodus.” It was written in 1958.
[The Arab terrorists] are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel... Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less. It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price -- even if it's only a symbolic price -- for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war... If, on the other hand, the UN were to reward nearly a century of rejectionism and violence by simply turning the clock back to 1967 (or 1947), it will be encouraging more cost-free rejectionism and violence.Good time to bring up the miserable failures, Clinton and Barak (that's Ehud, not Hussein Obama), just as a reminder that what miserable failures they were. But continuing their policies as if that's a good idea is not likely to play well with anyone, least of all Bill (and Hitlery) Clinton. Dersh also wrote an entire book claiming that the War On Terror should be fought with subpeonas, arrests, arraignments, and trials.
The Sudan
Rwanda
Burma/Myanmar
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Syria
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I don't see why not, they've supported them through UNWRA for 60 years.
I believe a number of them will quietly neglect to be suicide shock troops. They will not renounce it. They will celebrate in the streets with their fellows the latest heinous murder. But they will not join in and do anything, and secretly hope that the jihadis fail.
Is that cowardly? Yes. But a non-homicidal coward is better than a murdering lunatic who is brave enough to strap on a bomb and board a bus, acting as if he’s just another commuter. We need more cowards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.