Friday, April 03, 2009

Israel: No More BS 'Peace' Talks With Still-Violent 'Palestine'

It's about time Israel told the international community to stuff it and discontinue the ridiculously useless farce of "peace" talks with the "Palestinians" as long as there's any attacks on Israel and Israelis by them.

It's what I'd have done if I was in charge in Israel.

After all, it's insane to try to appease the folks who simply hate you just for being you and are always trying to kill you no matter what.

I suspect that it was the last straw that the Obama White House turned its back on Israel. What else but the credibility of the American point of view (under an Israel-friendly Republican administration) was keeping Israel talking with those latter-day Nazis while they were trying to destroy the small Jewish state just for existing and for being Jewish? I wouldn't try to negotiate peace with someone who was hellbent on killing me just because I'm the way I am, not because of anything I ever did. I'd return the fire, for feck's sake, until those feckers smarten the feck up!

Avigdor Lieberman said Israel's new government will suspend negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on so-called "final-status" issues - the borders of a Palestinian state, the fate of Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees and the city of Jerusalem - until the Palestinians take verifiable steps to end attacks against Israelis.

With the statement, the new Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reversed the policy of its predecessor, led by Ehud Olmert, which had been quietly attempting to negotiate a final settlement of the conflict with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the past 14 months.

(Olmert was quietly trying to sell out Israel for some reason. Traitor, he, perhaps).

"Sixteen years have passed since [the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians], and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us, and it is not the Annapolis conference. That has no validity," he said.

Mr. Lieberman said Israel would abide by an earlier George W. Bush administration product: the April 2003 "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," which laid out a three-phase, conditioned process to create a Palestinian state.

The so-called road map required Israel to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza but also demanded that the Palestinian Authority change its constitution, end support for terrorism and establish an effective government before it could get an independent state.

Of course. Only once the enemy stops being one's enemy is it logical, and worthwhile, to talk to them. Until then, the war must continue and the righteous shall prevail.

And the righteous is Israel!

I like the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Because great minds think alike, you know... Damn, but this guy has bigger balls than most politicians. After all, when facing the likes of the monstrously hateful, intolerant, murderous "Palestine", one requires balls as big and hairy as possible.

So what if Mr. Lieberman is "controversial"? Hey, Barack Hussein Obama is controversial. Hell, every gosh-darned politician is "controversial", for, hey, they're politicians, and who's more controversial than politicians, except for ballsy conservative political pundits like, say, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh... hell, I'll include Yours Truly! Oh, yeah, the leftist political pundits are controversial, especially because they can say the most outrageous stuff and pretty much get away with it, whereas conservative ones must be careful, else Obama, his hateful Brownshirts and his propaganda arm the Big Media will try to scare 'em, defame 'em or something...

I support Lieberman's demand that all Israelis take a loyalty oath. It's Israel's right to demand this in return for citizenship, which isn't something to take for granted in any country, and is something for which one, if it's a good and just country (like Free World countries like Israel is), should give something in return, if only a mere oath, which isn't a bad thing at all, as, hey, since when has the human race been about being entitled to one's entitlements without giving anything in return therefor?

Besides, requiring a loyalty oath is a lot less imposing and fascist than Barack Hussein Obama's planned (and already approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress) effectively-mandatory "national service corps", which would require, for all able-bodied Americans, four years of indoctrination and "service" to the state and would require the creation across America of various "camps", or "campuses" as the Obamites renamed them for less-scary optics. The legislation is nothing but sugarcoated doublespeak leaving everything to the imagination, and what could be more ominous, particularly with the Third Reich-like parallels?

I'd support a loyalty oath for Canadians, for Americans, etc., just as for Israel. Especially since the hard left and our enemies, particularly neoCommunist and Islamist ones, would rather our citizenry militate against their own countries, for no reason other than it's something to do to ease the boredom of their valueless, brainless, pathetic, godless, decadent, destructive left-wing worldview and existence. Refusing to be loyal to the country that protects your freedoms and human rights is nothing short of selfish, after all. Supporting countries who hate yours and who want to take your freedoms and human rights away makes you a traitor to your country, after all, and to oppose freedom, democracy and the rule of law in favor of regimes who don't tolerate any of those things is immoral. Of course, leftists are immoral, generally, for, after all, leftism is immoral.

A simple loyalty oath is also far less fascistic and far less imposing than the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and its provincial counterparts, which are nothing more than hard-left kangaroo courts that arrogantly, criminally, unconstitutionally run roughshod over the rights of those who dare speak against left-wing dogma and absurd political correctness imperatives.

And so what if Mr. Lieberman would like to see Israel give away, to a proper, official, legal "Palestinian" state, the parts of its territory with predominantly-Arab-Muslim populations? Need I remind that the Arab-Muslim world did (and continues to do, but who knows?) far worse than that, and expelled Judeo-Christians and others not Arab-Muslim en masse from its countries? To condemn Israel for giving away land to the majority Arab populations thereupon, which is far better than what the Arab-Muslim world has been and still is doing, while refusing to condemn the genocide of the latter, is dishonest or arrogantly, wilfully ignorant in the very least. Oh, wait... leftists are, after all...

As always, Israel continues to be fully within her rights. And everyone should be accepting this inconvenient-for-some truth!