Israel: the only country that consistenly rewards those who wish to destroy her.
Reader comment on item: Will Annapolis Renew the "Peace Process"?

Submitted by Dr RJP (United States), Oct 10, 2007 at 14:20

Never in the history of human civilization has one society been forced to reward those seeking to destroy it. In 1948, all the Arab nations surrounding tiny Israel launched a war of extermination, vowing to drive all Jews into the sea. What has been called "The Great Catastrophe" by the Arab world, is NOT the creation of the modern state of Israel, but of the continued failure to wipe out all Jews in the Middle East.

Never has the audacity of the prey to defeat the predator been more condemned.

In 1948, there was a UN peace plan on the table calling for separate Jewish and Arab states, and had the Arab states accepted this agreement, they would have had more formerly Jewish land to call their own than any subsequent "peace plan" had to offer.

Their response to the 1948 peace plan? Annihilation of the Jews.

Their response to resettling the Arabs that they themselves caused to become refugees? They refused their requests to be resettled in Arab countries. They were kept inside refugee camps as political pawns and as scapegoats for the problems in the Arab world. They were ordered not to become citizens of Israel

Many readers may be sur;prised to learn that Israel offered to resettle all of the Arabs who fled their homes in 1948 -- at the behest of their Arab leaders. Instead, their Arab leaders said, "No thanks" to Israel.

After the first Arab-Israeli War In 1948, Joran seized and occupied the West Bank for the next 19 years without so much as a peep from the UN. Over 20,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed by the Jordanian army, but, again, not a peep from the UN.

The 1948 War ended with a temporary armistice -- when, you ask? Why, just as the ragged Israeli army was routing the "superior Arab forces." With that armistice, came ARMISTICE LINES, NOT BORDERS.

KEY to ALL negotiations for peace has ALWAYS ben the finalization of Israel's borders -- aomething that Aram countries have never permitted to happen.

For the next eight years, the Arab world was given opportunity after opportunity to make recognize Israel and make peace. Instead, the Arab world, led by Egyptian President Nasser, embarked on yet another, failed attempt to isolate and destroy Israel.

Again, in 1967, the Arabs tried once more to wipe Israel off the map, and succeeded in widening the map for Israel. Israel claimed the West Bank from Jordan, and through a peace agreement with Jordan, retained rights to it.

BUT, all of the Arab states who had tried so many times to destroy Israel, now were demanding that Israel return the land surrendered during the 1967 War.

Never has any country been forced to return land it captured during a war of self-defense. So, why is Israel any different?

Listen carefully. There are no such things as "pre-1967 borders" because the Arab world has NEVER RECOGNIZED ANY BORDERS OF ISRAEL. So, why do they insist that she return to non-existent lines of demarcation? What was supposed to be the original borders of Israel were rejected by the Arab world in 1948, and there have never been any other borders proposed, or agreed to, by the Arab world.

That is part and parcel to the whole fallacy of a "Palestinian state," or a "Palestinian homeland", or anything else having the misnomer of Palestine. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a country or state called PALESTINE.

For these reasons, any mention of "peace agreements" from the Arab world has nothing whatsoever to do with either the recognition of Israel or the cessation of violence against it. As long as any shred of land exists that can be called, Israel, there will be Arabs seeking to drive Jews from it.

If you look in the dictionary under "oxymoron," you will see the phrase, "ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE AGREEMENT,"

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.