YES Operation, NO Pali State (=YES to Annexation)
I am typing this with my right hand and only one finger of my left. After thirty years (yes, you read that right: three-zero years) of living with pressure and tingling and numbness and lately a burning pain in my wrist and fingers, I finally had my carpal-tunnel release operation done on my left hand--my dominant hand--this morning.
The local hasn't worn off yet, so I'm not sure what I will feel when it does. Or maybe it already did, and the Vicodin has kicked in. And that's what's causing my nice side effect of...nausea. Yuck.
Which has nothing to do with the price of noodles, or rather the price of Israel's future secure existence as the Jewish State in the Middle East, otherwise known to some as 'the solution to the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict', which is also known to others (-actually the vast majority of the duped world population out there) as "ending the occupation."
Okay, being that I was just operated on I'm a little testy, 'tis true. But I have been shouting this from the rooftops of my blog since I started blogging five years ago: Israel should have annexed the "territories" in 1967, when she captured them from the aggressor Arab nations who massed to attack her in June of that year. And now, other, notable people are saying it too. See Batya's blog, and see Uri Elitzur's article on Israel National News.
It boils down to this:
1) A Palestinian state is a recipe for disaster. It will be an armed, terrorist state chafing at the bit to annihilate Israel.
2) Israel entered into the Six-Day War in June, 1967 because the Arabs were massing troops and tanks at the borders chafing at the bit to launch an attack in order to annihilate Israel.
3) Because of the fact that Israel was forced into a defensive war and took the first smart step-a preemptive strike-it has the right to annex the territories captured in that war if the enemy has not signed a treaty, agreed to stop hostilities or agreed to the victor's terms.
4) (This ties in with #1) It is not as if the Arabs want peace with Israel, or they would have recognized it as a Jewish State years ago. They don't, and they haven't, to this day. Ergo, a Pali state=a terrorist, anti-Israel state.
5) As Batya mentions in her post, the Arabs have no national history in the land of Israel, formerly known as "Palestine." There was never a sovereign Palestinian state, which is why when I use it, I mainly bracket the word with quotation marks.
6) The Jews have centuries of history in The Land, even though the Arabs have been constantly attempting to eradicate any evidence of this.
There are other reasons, too--but the local is wearing off and the pain beginning, so I will end this post, post-haste.
Praying for the One-State Solution: The sovereign Jewish State of Israel.
The local hasn't worn off yet, so I'm not sure what I will feel when it does. Or maybe it already did, and the Vicodin has kicked in. And that's what's causing my nice side effect of...nausea. Yuck.
Which has nothing to do with the price of noodles, or rather the price of Israel's future secure existence as the Jewish State in the Middle East, otherwise known to some as 'the solution to the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict', which is also known to others (-actually the vast majority of the duped world population out there) as "ending the occupation."
Okay, being that I was just operated on I'm a little testy, 'tis true. But I have been shouting this from the rooftops of my blog since I started blogging five years ago: Israel should have annexed the "territories" in 1967, when she captured them from the aggressor Arab nations who massed to attack her in June of that year. And now, other, notable people are saying it too. See Batya's blog, and see Uri Elitzur's article on Israel National News.
It boils down to this:
1) A Palestinian state is a recipe for disaster. It will be an armed, terrorist state chafing at the bit to annihilate Israel.
2) Israel entered into the Six-Day War in June, 1967 because the Arabs were massing troops and tanks at the borders chafing at the bit to launch an attack in order to annihilate Israel.
3) Because of the fact that Israel was forced into a defensive war and took the first smart step-a preemptive strike-it has the right to annex the territories captured in that war if the enemy has not signed a treaty, agreed to stop hostilities or agreed to the victor's terms.
4) (This ties in with #1) It is not as if the Arabs want peace with Israel, or they would have recognized it as a Jewish State years ago. They don't, and they haven't, to this day. Ergo, a Pali state=a terrorist, anti-Israel state.
5) As Batya mentions in her post, the Arabs have no national history in the land of Israel, formerly known as "Palestine." There was never a sovereign Palestinian state, which is why when I use it, I mainly bracket the word with quotation marks.
6) The Jews have centuries of history in The Land, even though the Arabs have been constantly attempting to eradicate any evidence of this.
There are other reasons, too--but the local is wearing off and the pain beginning, so I will end this post, post-haste.
Praying for the One-State Solution: The sovereign Jewish State of Israel.
Comments