Comments on: UNESCO’s Offensive Resolution…writes Liam Getreu

By: Paul Winter

Paul Winter — Sat, 22 Oct 2016 05:37:40 +0000

The UNESCO resolution is indeed offensive. But so to is the hypocritical posturing of the NIF that it and its prime fundee, B’Tselem, are Zionistic. MK Levin has aptly characterised B’Tselem’s words to the UN as traitorous.

Talk about Emek Shaveh? Where were those experts when the local mohammedans excavated the Temple Mount and built a mosque under it and at the same time attempting to destroy Jewish artifacts?

Hagai El-Ad’s UNSC testimony is a farrago of traitorous lies and pallyganda. There is no “occupation”, because there never was “Palestine” to occupy. Israel kicked out the Jordanian occupier in a defensive war. Israel has a right – as does any other state – to compensation for aggression to which the local Arabs contributed and still contribute. The international border is the Jordan River established in 1922 when Great Britain dishonoured its mandate and created Trans-Jordan on 78% of Palestine. The beastly behaviour of the self-style “Palestinian” (descendents of Arab migrants), their lies, blood-thirstiness and Jew hatred forfeits their right to nationhood.

B’Tselem’s appeal to the UNSC to impose a “peace” settlement to suit the PA/Hamas clique of cut throats and thieves, ignoring the security threat to Jews and the examples of Arabs exploiting Jewish humanity to harm Jews and their disrespect for any document they signed is treason by any standard. B’Tselem’s and the NIF’s posture shows their utter contempt for democracy. It also shows their hostility to Israel and their allegiance to green-left sturm-abteilungs.

By: Rami Reed

Rami Reed — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:39:21 +0000

Yes Liam, the Palestinians could have accepted Ehud Baraks offer at camp David…But they refused starting an intifada instead which in turn lead to the building of the security fence to ward off possible suicide bombers. They could also have accepted Clintons offer at Wye river.. But they refused. They could have accepted Ehud Olmerts very generous offer in 2008 which included shared rule over Jerusalem… But they didn’t bother to answer. This leads me to conclude that the do not want a state alongside Israel. They want to replace Israel with a Palestinian state or… Maybe they just like being ruled over by Israel since with Hamas in the picture, they don’t seem to be able to rule themselves.

By: Andrew Blitz

Andrew Blitz — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:57:42 +0000

It is both wrong and destructive to the prospects of peace to impose a solution. You state “A resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will come only with the backing of the United States, the United Nations Security Council and European Union.” For seventy years it has been apparent that this is nothing more than code language for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish nation State.

The true statement is that “A resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will come only when a Palestinian leader emerges with the support of his/her people to accept coexistence”.