Miguel Diocuore , Political Blog, Conservative Bloggers, Republican Blogspot, Political Blogs

The world’s fixation on a Palestinian state is symptomatic of a worldwide disease. Some would diagnose this disease as Jew-hatred. Others would call it stupidity. Still others would say both. Let’s focus on stupidity, which, after all, accounts for much of human history.
It would take heavy tomes to document all the stupidity evoked by the Palestinian state issue. Still, let’s enumerate some points: first, about the Arabs in question, and second, geostrategic considerations.
1) There is no Palestinian language and no Palestinian culture. The Arabs in question are part of the Sunni Arab majority of the Middle East. 2) The Arabs don’t really want a separate independent state.3) They lack the habits, the temperament, and skills required for independent and responsible statehood—as some of the following points make obvious:4) They indoctrinate their children to hate Jews and Israel.5) They train children to be jihadists.6) They have used children as human bombs.7) They elected a variety of thugs to rule over them.8) They venerate a religion whose followers have slaughtered some 270 million human beings since the time of Muhammad.
Turning to geostrategic considerations:
9) There isn’t enough room between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean for two viable states. More than two million Arabs restricted to 2,323 square miles of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”), and another million Arabs squeezed into 141 square miles in Gaza, is a formula for economic stagnation and discontent—a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by one or another terrorist group.10) The imagined state would be a constant threat to Jordan.11) The imagined state would be split by Fatah and Hamas.12) The imagined state, consisting of a dozen rival tribes and clans from the Middle East and North Africa, would invite Iran to quell any internal disturbance.
Now, please indulge my frankness: Aren’t you tired of being reminded of the poor “Palestinians” whose charming media call for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America”?,.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Eidelberg/paul105.htm

We SAY: Aren’t you tired of hearing that the conflict in question is not a territorial conflict but an ideological conflict? This is so obvious that one might reasonably conclude that President Obama and his Middle East advisers are either Pavlovian idiots or Pavlovian Jew-hatters responding to a bell called “Israel.”

Much has been made of President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to report this story. See the WND report.
As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:
"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.
In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another will inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In order for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can be preferred over another--not even our own.