Tuesday, June 27, 2006

News Media "Implicitly" Recognizes Palestinian Right To Destroy Israel

This morning Associated Press is carrying the story "Hamas-Fatah To Implicitly Recognize Israel." Isn't it interesting that they are not outright recognizing Israel's right to exist? No. Instead, they are "implicitly" recognizing Israel.

In fact, they are not even implicitly recognizing Israel. If you read the document which is the foundation of this agreement, it does not at all recognize Israel. Instead it expresses that the Palestinian people;

1) have a right to resistance (which "implicitly" means terrorism)

2) have a right to Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of their homeland, and

3) have the right of return, which means they have the right to bring millions of Palestinians into Israel from all parts of the territories, Jordan, and Egypt.

This, of course, would mean the Jewish people would no longer be a majority within their homeland, which means they would be at the mercy of the Palestinian people.

Considering the Palestinian people do not allow Jews to live in their land now, what do you think would happen to the Jewish people were the Palestinians to achieve the right of return?

But, the news media is telling us the Palestinians are "implicitly" recognizing Israel's right to exist. Why would the news media lie like this? Is it because they want to see peace so badly that they are willing to lie to themselves? I suspect this is true. But, the reality is, this "implicitly" they are willing to sacrifice the Jewish homeland in order to achieve "peace."

That is some tradeoff. You know, Hitler believed the German people could have lived in peace, if only they could have gotten rid of the Jews. But, so much for history.

6 comments:

Thomas von der Trave said...

And the question is, why on earth is anyone taking seriously as a basis for an agreement between states (or rather, between a state and a would-be statelet) a document circulated by prisoners?

"The Prisoners' Document"? Come on, if it were to be viewed in earnest, wouldn't it have to come from the Palestinian "government" leadership?

Israel is supposed to relax its guard because of an implicit "maybe" from a bunch of pricks in prison?

Pastorius said...

Cato,

Really, when it comes down to it, what is the difference between the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, and a bunch of criminals and thugs?

Thomas von der Trave said...

Well, you'd think they would at least try to make the distinction, if only for propaganda purposes...

Pastorius said...

Good point.

Pastorius said...

I get the feeling that even the media is getting tired of all this.

Not that that means they have found a moral compass.

Avi Green said...

I don't know if UPI is any better, but most newspapers should just stop carrying the AP and Reuters if this is how they're going to keep on.