ABOUT DEMANDS AND A JUST RESPONSE

By Schmoel Yitzhak

There has been a lot of "demanding" going around these days by folks whose comments range between fatuous and foolish.

Leading off the intellectually weak batting order is none other than senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. (Liberals like to call him a "moderate." I call him a phony.)

Be that as it may, Erekat is demanding that Israel release Aziz Duek, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament who was recently arrested. Plus, he wants 130 other prisoners released including Marwan Barghouti, head of Fatah's Tanzim armed wing.

Presumably, Erekat's "demand" is linked to meetings he's conducting with Israeli envoy Isaac Molocho in Amman to advance negotiations between Israel and the Arabs who conveniently masquerade under the banner "Palestinians," although there is no such nation.

Nor will there by any negotiations for the pure and simple reason that the Arabs continually pre-torpedo genuine peace meetings with demands that cannot -- and should not -- be met. As Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman cogently notes, the Arabs are trying to determine the facts on the ground and internationalize the conflict.

Hence, the so-called Palestinians never stop "demanding." If it isn't the release of prisoners such as Barghouti -- who has been in jail for good reason -- then there's the ever present demand for a construction halt in just about any place Israelis want to build, be it East Jerusalem, Judea or Samaria.

Why should Molocho, who represents Benjamin Netanyahu, give in to any of these demands when three critical points remain apparent: 1. Erekat's Palestinian Authority buddies are in constant negotiations with Hamas for a "unity" government. Not long ago Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal to set the ground for Hamas to join the PLO.

Since it's clear that Hamas is dedicated to Israel's destruction -- and if you don't believe it, just ask Meshal -- what's the point of Molocho even talking to Erekat?

2. If an election were to take place in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas would easily win over the PA, leaving negotiations back at Square One which is nowhere because of the Hamas refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.

3. Should a Palestinian state ever be declared -- it should not -- Abbas has made it abundantly clear that Jews would not be allowed to live there. Therefore, such a theoretical country would be the purest type of an apartheid state.

Could you imagine the reception Israel would get if it said tomorrow no Arabs could live inside her borders? Apparently Apartheid (Israel is no where close to being an Apartheid State, America, Australia and most of Western are much closer to being Apartheid States than Israel)is fine as long as it is carried out by the Arabs.

Alas, "demands" upon Israel abound everywhere, not merely inside Arab capitals, unless, of course, you consider Paris part of the Islamic empire.

In the France of an ever-growing Muslim population -- "demands" on Israel are couched in another word, "warnings."

Thus, we have French President Nicolas Sarkozy warning Israel against any military intervention against Iran over its nuclear program.

Sarkozy apparently is unmoved by the fact that Iran is hellbent for building nuclear weapons with a top priority to wipe out Israel with atomic bombs. Bear in mind that Sarkozy is head of a nation that twice was invaded by the Germans: first in 1914 to ignite World War I and again in 1940 as World War II was spread across Europe by the Nazis.

If the Kaiser's -- and then Hitler's -- military build-up was an evil portent of terrible things to come, why shouldn't the Iranian threat be taken seriously?

It has been proven over and over again that Iranian warlords scoff at the "much stronger sanctions" that Sarkozy and the ineffective American president Barak Obama propose. They fiddle while the Iranians build bigger and more threatening weaponry.

Interestingly -- make that frighteningly -- Sarkozy's "warning" against a military strike on Iran coincides with the 70th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference on the Nazi "Final Solution" for the Jewish people.

The primary difference between Wannsee and Tehran is that Hitler essentially kept his "Final Solution" plans as secretive as possible whereas the Iranians make no bones about their desire to execute a "Final Solution -- Round Two."

That being the obvious case, why shouldn't Israel defend itself by preventing a nuclear Iran? Bibi has every right to take every measure -- military and otherwise -- to, as the Israeli Prime Minister so aptly puts it, "Ensure that such a human tragedy as 'The Final Solution' never happens again."

This much is certain; despite tissue-paper threats from the White House and the European Union, there will be no quick, intense moves against Iran. That means that the Israel-hating leaders in Tehran will consolidate their nuclear infrastructure and better protect it from military strikes and become immune from such strikes before any significant sanctions take place.

Israel can expect no meaningful help from Sarkozy, who appears more worried about his Muslim constituency than Israel's security.

As for Obama's quiet threat to Bibi against any Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, remember that the White House is considerably more concerned about the president's re-election -- rising oil prices, always a worry -- than Israel's protection against a REAL atomic threat.

My conclusion is the same as Sarkozy's or Obama's would be were either leader in Netanyahu's shoes.

Bibi has made it clear that the Israeli government has the "right, duty and capability" to prevent the elimination of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

No threats nor warnings from the likes of Saeb Erekat nor Nicolas Sarkozy nor Barack Obama can shake that conviction.