PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD -- NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T

By Sig Demling

The Palestinians on-again-off-again bid to achieve statehood through the United Nations comes and goes like roaches in my kitchen. 

Now you see them; now you don't.

Mahmoud Abbas, chief promoter of the UN gambit, is an inveterate faker.

Although his term ended nearly four years ago he remains artificially perched in the role -- as the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick so aptly puts it -- of "invented position of Palestinian Prime Minister." (His pseudo-intellectual sidekick, Saeb Erakat, is no bargain either.)

But what of their UN charade? Does it have a smidgen of reality attached? Would it be legal?

Of course not but Yasir Arafat's longtime puppet and current master of Arab graft, doesn't care. The following are a few choice facts that Abbas chooses to ignore: 

ILLEGAL I: Any such attempts by the Palestinians would violate agreements with Israel. And if that's the case, it frees Benjamin Netanyahu to play ping-pong and start violating Israel's agreements with the Arabs.

ILLEGAL II: All major agreements between Israel and the Palestinians have required that disputes between the parties be settled through direct negotiations and not via third parties.

ILLEGAL III: The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (Sept. 4, 1999) bars unilateral moves proposed over the past few years by the Abbas-Erakat duet.

If the Palestinian route through the United Nations sounds like an old record, it should. After all, this is a very old song of the desert.

On October 1, 1948 the Higher Arab Committee, claiming to represent the Palestinian people, passed the Proclamation of the Independence of Palestine. And that was that until 40 years later, on November 15, 1988 the PLO declared an independent Palestinian state.  

"Under UN criteria," wrote Alex Safran, in the CAMERA Media Report, "the territory under the control of the Palestinians does not constitute a state."

That's because due to the Oslo Accords and other agreements the PA has limited and even temporary authority. Or, as Safran points out:

"In no sense does the PA have complete governmental control over a permanent population nor does it have control over a defined territory. The bottom line is that only through good faith negotiations with Israel can the Palestinians address these issues and achieve statehood."

If the Abbas-Erekat bid gains any traction it would be both a sham and a shame primarily because of Abbas career-long hatred of Israel not to mention the endless series of Arab Jew-slaughter that preceded the state of Israel.

FACT: On October 4, 1938 Arabs broke into the Tiberias house of Joshua Ben Arieh where they stabbed and burned to death, Joshua, his wife and one son. That done the Arabs then stabbed and burned to death three children of Shlomo Leimer. Not satisfied with their work, the murderers broke into the house of Shimon Mizrahi where they killed his wife and five children before setting fire to the house.

FACT: In March 2011 Udi and Ruth Fogel of Itamar and their three childen were stabbed to death and partially decapitated by Arabs -- who else?

FACT: Abbas, as Glick asserts, has been an "inveterate Jew-hater" not to mention a long-time member of a terrorist organization. What's more his "doctoral" dissertation is a denial of the Holocaust.

And the United Nations is going to take these guys seriously?

If so, then the UN might as well move itself to the bottom of East River!

WHEN IT COMES TO IRAN, WHO'S DRUNK AND WHO'S UGLY?

By Schmoel Yitzhak

When Winston Churchill was Great Britain's heroic World War II Prime Minister he often relaxed with a big cigar and a glass of whiskey.

Occasionally the booze would betray the great man and turn him into a bit of a drunk. 

And so it was at one party Churchill drank a wee too much and became inebriated a wee too much until, finally, the prim and proper Lady Halifax assailed him with these words:

"Winston, you should be ashamed of yourself; you're drunk!"

Withstanding the verbal assault, the Prime Minister shot back: "Lady Halifax, I may be drunk but you're ugly. Tomorrow morning I'll be sober but you'll still be ugly."

Which brings us to the dreadful doings at the United Nations' General Assembly and the issue of which diplomats emerged sober and who still is ugly.

Not much guessing is needed for an answer because it all was evident to those viewing the annual sham on shame.

Representing Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described Israel as "uncivilized Zionists." If that wasn't libel enough, The Madman from Tehran added that Uncle Sam and leaders of Western powers have "entrusted themselves to the Devil."

In case you haven't heard, Ahmadinejad heads a country that features such amenities as, 1. Suppression of both freedom of speech and assembly; 2. Persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, homosexuals and women.; 3. Torture for those who dare oppose the regime along with cruel punishments, unfair trials and arbitrary detentions.  

And this guy has the chutzpuh to describe Israelis as "uncivilized Zionists." 

Unfortunately the media seems intoxicated -- a la Churchill -- by the Iranian's presence until the morning after when his diatribes are analyzed for their viciousness and vacuity. That's when the sobering up takes place. Meanwhile Ahmadinejad remains as ugly as ever.

No less troubling is the rather timid response to the Iranian madness by President Obama who, more and more, is coming across like a cross between Neville Chamberlin and Lady Halifax. 

Like so many of his ilk, the Chief Executive still doesn't get it; or doesn't want to get it because if he believes that the Iranians have only Israel in their crosshairs, the man is sadly mistaken. It would be useful if the White House gave a read to the latest insightful missive from the Committee For Accuracy In Middle East Reporting In America (CAMERA). Titled, "A Nuclear-Capable Iran Is A Threat To America," CAMERA zeroes in on the many reasons why Obama & Company had better awaken from their slumber.

The primary thrust is that Washington has as much to fear about Tehran as does Jerusalem. Specifically, CAMERA'S newsletter points out that a nuclear Iran would pose multiple threats to America especially when it comes to security. 

Here's how CAMERA so accurately portrays the unmitigated danger of a nuclear Iran:

* It would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

* American military bases and thousands of American troops are already in range of Iranian missiles.

* Iran operates in Central and South America in cooperation with organized criminal cartels, terrorists including Hezbollah cells and governments hostile to the United States such as Venezuela.

* Iran is the world's leading state-sponsor of terror and even if it did not  share nuclear weapons technology with its terrorist allies and proxies, would have a shield under which to expand their operations.

This is real stuff not fiction and explains why Benjamin Netanyahu drew a "red line" before the General Assembly so as to awaken those who fantasize that Iran can be neutralized by sanctions.

If Tehran remains so utterly brazen at this point in time, imagine what would happen if it achieved its vicious nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu: "Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs.

"Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?"

Maybe some day soon, Obama will awaken from his drunken stupor, sober up and genuinely challenge Ahmadinejad who -- no matter how you color him -- remains ugly!