Which is why there is not going to be a “Palestinian” state as the antiJews of the world imagine it. It just ain’t going to happen that the people of Israel are going to agree to drive 500,000 Jews from their homes and force them to return to the 9-mile wide waist of a country that Israel had in 1967. And of course after this mass flight and re-settlement program, the Muslims will take complete control of the western slope of the hills of Judea and Samaria overlooking that 9-mile wide strip of congested Jewish life and be free to set up their primitive, portable Qassam rocket launching apparatus. Jews are not going to agree to that.

World antiJewry believes in the future transformation of Judea and Samaria into a Judenrein “Palestinian” state as of right; and until Israel agrees to this “Two-State Solution,” Israel will be the guilty party, the enemy of justice and peace, the criminal victimizer of the Ancient Palestinian people whose land Israel refuses to return.

And in a similar vein to this antiJew demand that Israel retreat to the 1949 cease-fire line, which no sober Israeli will ever agree to, so Israel demands of the Hamites here that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which demand from the Muslim viewpoint is likewise simply impossible. At least until they have a Reformation or a Vatican II.

What Netanyahu is doing is demanding that these Arabs sign off on the rightness of Jews living free and independent in our ancient homeland, which is a demand in direct contradiction to the Qur’an and 14 centuries of history between Jews and Arab Muslims. Forget the legendary Golden Age of Spain; the common record of Jewish life under Arab Muslims is a poor one. The Jews suffered every bit as much as Jews in Ashkenaz at Christian hands. The Qur’an repetitively deals with the Jews, and it is clear, as one verse says, that we are Islam’s Enemy No. 1, “more than Christian priests,” according to the verse.

In other words, the last 17 years of peace-making, the bloody handiwork the Jewish Left, Rabin, Peres, Beilin, Indyk, etc. has been an impossible dream dreamed up by ignorant men ignorant of Islam and its historic mistreatment of Jews.

And why? Men like Rabin, Peres and Beilin were raised as antiJew, secular Zionists who thought that if they, as “Israelis,” did not act like Jews, believe like Jews, live like Jews, the Arabs wouldn’t treat them as Jews. The world would treat Israelis as normal people. No more of this Chosen People stuff and persecutions.

No, Israelis like Rabin and Peres and Beilin, Amos Oz, David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua still believe that if we stop abusing the victims of our parents’ Zionism and do right by the “Palestinians” whose right to this land is every bit as righteous as the Jewish right, only then will peace come.

The implication of this view of course is that all the Arabs want and are justified in wanting is half of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria, and not a square meter more.

Just give them everything Israel took in 1967, give it all back, and they will break out into smiles of gratitude and friendship.

For these radically dejudaized people, because of their radical dejudaization, are incapable of empathically, truly identifying with the Arabs/the Muslims they purport to care for; identify with them as fellow religionists. And because of this defect, they are blind and deaf to the essential religious nature of the Arabs’ complaint against Israel…

What these narcissistic, hedonistic wrong-headed people don’t understand is that Jewish law and living by that law is what keeps the Jewish people alive; exactly as, say, the American people keep alive by living according to the Constitution and all the cases that have come from it. Without living by a written text you bind yourself too, there is nothing to keep the identity of a community intact.

Listen to Rabbi Galia Sadan explain and complain about the Orthodox method of conversion, commonly of the non-Jewish spouse in one of the marriages her stream throws holy water on: “Are we bringing people closer to us, whether as spouses or on their own, in a pleasant, accepting process that understands the tension between a person’s desire to adopt Jewish tradition. And his desire to maintain a modern lifestyle, or are we interested in a humiliating process that causes people to fail? Orthodox conversion is very difficult to complete. It’s an educational process that expects people to become religiously observant, and what can you do if not everyone wants to become religiously observant? People pretend so they’ll get the seal of approval. Our country was revealed in all its glory in 2002 when it declared that it is pluralistic, and that a person can be recognized as a convert in any denomination he chooses. The High Court of Justice ruled that the government must recognize all conversions for all intents and purposes. And now this bill comes along and takes us backward. We’re giving up pluralism, recognizing only the Israeli rabbinate…Giving authority to the Chief Rabbinate means that if you don’t observe the Sabbath, they won’t convert you. If you seek to convert because you want to live according to Jewish tradition but don’t want to observe Shabbat – to live a Jewish but not an orthodox life – you won’t be able to convert though. This is an undemocratic country where there are people who can’t get married.”

Let me stop there. I don’t know about you but this is just brainlessness, takes my breath away.

Time for a break…

Notice too how Carroll says the “Palestinians” finally mounted resistance, in 1936, with the implication that they attacked British occupying forces the way, say, the Minutemen in American in 1776 attacked uniformed British soldiers.

No. As suggested before, they began by murdering Jews at random. And notice the use of the word “resistance.” Carroll has adopted the word Arabs use to describe their terror atrocities to this very day. Hamas calls its violence against Israel “resistance”; so does Hezbollah; so does Bin Ladin. These paranoiacs perceive the very existence of Western civilization as a threat to them, and therefore they must “resist” it.

Carroll calls the violence of 1936-39 a “London-ordered colonial war”. This too bears no true reflection of that decade’s intifada. Carroll uses the word “brutal” but only to refer to Britain’s response, not the brutality of the Arabs who murdered Jews at random just like today; shot up crowds of Jews exiting movie theaters after the show; shot up medical clinics for Jews and medical clinics for Arabs in which Jewish doctors and nurses provided the service. Carroll reserves the word “brutal” for the British.

He writes of “Political institutions and economic systems…devastated” presumably by the British at that time; presumably “Palestinian” political institutions. The truth is they had no political institutions at that time. Just two years before in 1934 they created their first political parties which weren’t even that: they were fancy names given to the two rival families in Jerusalem, the al-Husseini and the Nashashibi families who gussied up their respective clans with political names.

And as for devastating the “Palestinian economy”: the Arabs did that to themselves by calling that April for a national strike of Arab labor to protest Jews coming into the land fleeing Nazi Europe; which strike only boosted the Jewish economy and crippled their own. They did it to themselves.

Lastly, Carroll writes “The Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never fully to be restitched again.”

This is in a class with the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Arab poetry sucked from a hash pipe. Again, in 1936 there was no “Palestinian” social fabric. In that year the Arabs’ leader Haj Amin was still denying there was such a place as Palestine.

What James Carroll does when he writes about Israel like this is to reflect the “Palestinian narrative” he has downloaded into his head these last 40 years when he should know it is a pile of filthy lies about Jews and the violence here.

He has in his head a false history because he wants to have a false history in which moral equivalence is the background music. He writes “Two peoples who have each defined themselves positively by negative hatred of the other but…each can receive the other’s account of the past and perhaps for the first time, hear it respectfully.”

Yeah, the moral equivalence of our version and their version. For this perverted post-modernist, both sides have a valid memory of history and both sides have a valid claim – and to hell with the historical truth; and I do mean to Hell.

Thus does this post-Catholic priest hang onto a fresh reason for scourging the Jews…

The original sin of Oslo was the decision to trash the principle of not dealing with such evil men as Arafat and Abbas, to engage them in negotiations.

Men like these, these butchers of innocent people in terrorist atrocities deserve not negotiations but only to be hunted down and killed.

Not only is that the moral thing to do, it is the smart, strategic thing to do, for negotiations get you nowhere except deeper into the slime and the last 17 years have been proof of that…

So, not surprisingly on Tuesday when Bibi met Barack, the latter came out of the meeting pleased to tell the press that he was persuaded that Israel is, under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, ready to “take risks for peace.”

That’s an expression of lengthy pedigree; it has been in the lexicon of the peace processors for years. They believe that one necessary ingredient of successful peace processing is Israel’s readiness to “take risks for peace” – which is code for “retreat and weakening itself by handing over strategically important terrain to the enemy in the belief this will please him and slake his thirst for what Israel possesses. Israel must take a risk for peace by endangering itself even more than it is endangered now.”

And why? To placate, to satisfy, to soothe the savage breast of the Ishmaelites who feel aggrieved because Israel stole Palestine from them. If Israel wants peace, it must compensate the victims of its national movement.

Hence, even more “confidence-building gestures” to be made by Israel. Notice, the Ancient Palestinians are never asked to make their own confidence-building measures, like reducing the quantity of antisemitic bilge on their PA TV station.

Nothing. Never. Goornisht. Only Israel must make confidence-building measures a/k/a baksheesh, tribute. The Ancient Ones never, the aggrieved party in this relationship.

One wishes for a prime minister who when asked by some obnoxious, ignorant journalist like a Thomas Friedman if Israel is prepared to take risks for peace, answers candidly: “What, are you crazy? Do you think we are crazy? We are surrounded on the three sides, 5 and a half million of us, by 300 million barbaric Arabs and Muslims whose core identity, Islam, is a nasty piece of antisemitic nonsense in a league with Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

“We Jews too, if not ahistorical Israelis, have a history with these Muslims going back 14 centuries, and it’s not a pretty story. And in our own time as well, these cruel savages have bombed us hundreds of times with their suicide maniacs, homicidal Muslim maniacs for whom murdering Jews is the ultimate in piety, more important than life itself. Exploding yourself in the middle of a crowd of unsuspecting Jewish people in an otherwise peaceful civilian setting is worth it – if you take the lives of as many al-Yahud as you can with you.

“That’s who the enemy is, No. 1. No.2: We don’t take risks because we live on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea on a strip of land 50 miles/80 kilometers across, that’s it.

“Take risks for peace”? The last person in Israel who should be ready to take risks for peace is the prime minister. His first duty is to protect his people. A parent sends his child to school on a school bus and expects the driver to take no chances when on the road with his charges. He must take no risks. And likewise the prime minister of Israel is charged with the safety of his people surrounded by all these brutes.

“No sir,” I would tell Prince Obama Israel will take no risks for peace whatsoever. Let the other side take risks for peace. We took a big risk in 1994 when we handed over a significant amount of land to the Arabs in Yesha and what we got in return was a series of diabolical bombings that took the lives of almost 2,000 Jews and wounded even more physically, and even more emotionally: the surviving family and friends of the dead, the crippled and the mutilated.

I am sick of these peace processors and their process which is all about kowtowing to these barbarians…

The newspapers here have been, these three days of this week, running large advertisements paid for by Yesha Council featuring the faces and quotations of seven of his cabinet ministers vowing the resumption of building in September. It is meant to be a signal to him and Obama that there are people here who are furious at this freeze.

I’m furious, though I give Bibi the benefit of doubt, for, believe it or not, there is something more important than ending the freeze and that is defanging Iran.

The Muslim antisemite in the Oval Office is reported to be demanding that the freeze continue or else no U.S. efforts against Iran.

If that is so, then I would expect Bibi to terminate the freeze as planned because this guy is an antagonist; he is an enemy who is not to be trusted. He is going to screw us no matter what Bibi decides. If he thinks that prolonging the freeze will get this son of a female canine to change his spots, I think he is mistaken.

I only wish Bibi would find his way to laying down the law that Judea and Samaria are not Gross Pointe, Michigan or Tuxedo Park, NY, – restricted communities – but our ancient homeland which is so central to our religion, and no one on this planet has the right to tell us we can’t live in Judea and Samaria. It is not settled wisdom etched in granite that Judea and Samaria must be Judenrein.

Bibi has to go public and declare war against this line of thinking. He has to say that until such time as the Arabs in Yesha publicly, in a referendum monitored by Jimmy Carter, vote in support of the proposition that the Jews have a right to have their state in the ancient homeland; and the Arabs publicly foreswear this ridiculous notion of a “right of return,” the right to flood Israel will millions of hostile Muslims, Israel will live without a peace agreement with these people. And Israel will continue to maintain by force if necessary the right of Jews to live anywhere in the heart of the heart of Promised Land they want to…

I mean, down in the imitation goy university in Beersheva, named for David ben-Gurion, a professor of bioethics was just fired because he told his students that homosexuality was flawed behavior and could be restrained. As he restrains himself from fornication with women he finds attractive because he is married; so this behavior likewise can be contained.

He also said same sex couples raising a child deprive that child of a normal life.

This offended a sodomite in the class who got him fired. And although YNET.com did not report if the professor believes in the G-d of Israel, it did report that he lives in Kiryat Arba, which of course is in “Occupied Palestine.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I think society, Western society has gone crazy in the matter of sodomy. Just last Monday, the U.S Supreme Court said a university can deny recognition of a Christian student group because it will not admit people who sodomize one another (and other non-Christians), for surely it is as anti-Christian a behavior as it is antiJewish.

In a five-to-four decision in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against that Christian group because of its rejection of sodomites as members in their group.

I think the world has gone mad.

Last week too, in her confirmation hearings, the post-mitzvot Jewess Elena Kagan, which name reveals her descent from Aaron the High Priest, spoke of a decision she made at Harvard having to do with fair treatment regardless of “sexual orientation.”

“Sexual orientation.” That is an invention in a class with “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “transgender,” “Ancient Palestinian.” It is a verbal invention whose purpose is to spread a smoke-screen of fantasy over the truth.

“Sexual orientation”? There is no such thing. This expression was invented by sexual deviants to re-brand their deviation as normal and not deviant.

“Sexual orientation” was invented to preach the moral equivalence of normal sexual behavior between men and women, versus abnormal behavior. To say that so-and-so has a different “sexual orientation” is like saying the anorexic has a different nutritional orientation. Most people like to eat. The anorexic prefers not to. What’s the deal?

Of course with the anorexic her different nutritional orientation will kill her. Homosexual orientation does not necessarily kill on an individual basis, but if enough people in a society commit this perversion, the society will die. This is historical fact. The homosexuality of ancient Greece and Rome was a major factor in the disappearance of those cultures and societies.

A couple of months ago in England, somewhere in Cumbria, a Baptist street preacher spoke against sodomy and a complaint was filed, and he was arrested and jailed for basically hurting the feelings of a sodomite who heard him.

And then there is the “transgender” invention associated with the so-called “sex-change.”

The truth is that no man or woman has ever been turned into the opposite sex. This is a verbal fantasy invention. Men and women are distinguished from one another by possessing one of two types of reproductive, bodily organs: the man’s two-part equipment external to the body and the woman’s internal womb. No man has ever been fitted with a womb; no woman with a working set of male equipment.

And in fact, the professional literature regarding the misnamed “transgender” patient never records the desire of the sick one to either father a child or become pregnant to bear and nurse a child. What these slaves of their fantasies want is to wear the clothes of the other sex and pretend to be the other sex – which has nothing to do with procreation and child-rearing and everything to do with the archaic image in Greek and Roman mythology of the hermaphrodite.

This was a Catholic philosophy about as wrong-headed as its pathological and ultimately suicidal installation of celibacy as a priestly ideal. Look at what the Irish Catholics did to themselves: they would take the best brain among the kids and turn into a priest who does not pass on his good DNA. Not only is celibacy perverse, it’s stupid.

And it was the same wrong-headed thinking that had the Church of Rome condemning money-lending as an evil.

When it is not. What a money system does is transform immovable wealth, such as land (real estate) into a liquid commodity that gets passed around. Capitalism, not socialism, creates the greatest material good for the greatest number because it virtually alchemically transforms natural resources/immovable wealth (after gold and silver) into a symbolic piece of paper, which requires literacy to be read. And that’s the way to spread the wealth around. There is a connection between capitalism and democracy for the common man.

And when the English broke from Rome and began their slow rise to world dominance, they had to deal with such as the international Jewish merchants in Venice who, thanks to their multi-lingual abilities and business sense, were the major importers and exporters of the day. And that comedy by Mr. Shakespeare which is now playing in New York by a disappointing Al Pacino was written in that time period when the Jew was still a money-grubbing, blood-thirsty, all-around disgusting person, a figure of ridicule. When Shakespeare first mounted this production, there was, in modern terms, zero political correctness about laughing at and making fun of Jews. Nothing to be ashamed of. This was pre-Holocaust.

On the contrary, in England’s mostly Roman Catholic phase, Christians every Good Friday heard a sermon in the parish church confirming them in the belief that Jews are perfidious. That’s how bad the Jews are. They are perfidious…

Every major terrorist attempt in the name of Islam, 9-11 in New York and 7/7 in London, the recent Times Squares attempt, etc. has been carried out by Muslims over the edge, living out a perfectly satanic life, a Hamitic life in which acts of monstrous violence are pulled off with nary a twinge of conscience.

If these Muslims can in their hundreds of millions applaud a 9-11 as they did, they are capable of launching atomic bombs not only against us, G-d forbid, but have the brains to put a small rocket with an atomic bomb on a cargo ship and sail it from the Persian Gulf into Chesapeake Bay and lob it Qassam-like into downtown Washington, G-d forbid.

There has been much in the news these days, rumors of Israel and/or the U.S. together preparing a strike against Iran. Last week here, former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit and the current head of the national security bureau for Bibi, Uzi Arad, both separately spoke of the necessity of an Israeli pre-emptive strike. With nuclear missiles in the equation, the dynamics of conflict are different from the mainstream in an old Wild West town where the guy who drew first was the guilty party. With atomic weapons in Iranian hands, we in Israel simply cannot, as Arad explained – not a new thought by him – reserve the right to counter-attack after a nuclear strike against us. We can’t wait for their first strike. As they say in Noo York, ‘Fuggedaboutit”..

In today’s attacks by World-AntiJewry, they came from Gaza on the continent of Asia, dominated once again after all these years, these centuries, these millennia by spiritual descendants of the Philistines whose champion Goliath our David son of Jesse was victorious over, but whose real, genetic descendants today have yet to vanquish.

Israel was also attacked from the port city of Goteborg, Sweden in Scandinavia; also from the continent of North America, specifically at United Nations headquarters in New York City; also from Brussels, Belgium and Strasbourg, France on the continent of Europe.

Not that all the attacks were the same. What stood out was the micro-military act of firing mortars at Jewish villages east of Philistine Gaza; actual weapons that armies use in war. But really a micro-military-like attempt to physically murder Jews, which set it apart from the other attacks. The other barrages from other continents were verbal.

Accusations of crime, of guilt for crime against these very same Neo-Philistines in Gaza and the Neo-Canaanites in antisemitically misnamed in “East Jerusalem.”

That name never ceases to amaze, for its verbal purpose is to set apart, to deny it to Jews. When the Berlin Wall was torn down by Germans in 1989, the Free World wept and laughed and rejoiced for joy that that city divided by not just a wall but a security barrier thrown up by the enemies of freedom, the Commies in Russia and their East German Commie stooges. I remember when it went up around 1960 to keep people oppressed by the evil disciples of the evil Jewish apostate Karl Marx from escaping. And when it was torn down in 1989, the Free World rejoiced.

But after 1967 when Israelis had done the identical thing – tear down a wall that divided their capital city – World AntiJewry did not like that. In a way, 1967 was far more momentous than 1948 when Israel declared independence and fought and won the war, at least up to a cease-fire. Only in 1967 did the heart of the Biblical narrative come into Jewish hands. Judea and Samaria, and above all Jerusalem. Not since before the birth of Christianity had Jews been sovereign in Jerusalem, meaning over the heart of Jerusalem, the only reason for its existence: the Temple Mount.

It is illuminating that Jerusalem, this most contested piece of real estate on our planet that commands no natural resources; sits astride no vital artery of international commerce and business is so important; while its value has never been anything but in the realm of ideas, religious ideas. The heart of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount, site of the Binding of Isaac 3,687 years ago, when the seed of today’s Jewish people was just a nuclear family. And it is no coincidence that that story of the binding of Isaac was stolen and renamed and called Islam, when Ibrahim allegedly bound his son Isma’il at the Kaaba in Mecca.

And that is why the marauding first Muslims built over that site their Golden Dome of the Rock which Muhammed had allegedly mounted before he allegedly leapt to heaven to meet all the prophets who preceded him, before returning to earth the same night to lead his Arabs to Islam, a word meaning “submission” – a word for slaves – submission to Allah.

Jerusalem is the heart of the matter, and today out of UN headquarters in New York City this Korean guy, from the far, Far East speaking in the same of all the nations of Planet Earth accused Israel of planning to illegally destroy Ancient Palestinian dwellings in “East Jerusalem,” by which he and the whole world really mean the Temple Mount above all. Ban Ki-Moon, secretary of the world’s goyim said, “The planned moves are contrary to international law and to the wishes of the Palestinian residents.”

So, he basically called us criminals. Criminals who break the law, in this case international law which supports, he says, “the wishes of the Palestinians.”