No Jews Allowed in the Pal. State

The Palestine Liberation Organization's ambassador to the United States made several declarations this past week in an interview with USA Today that should bury the idea of a Pal. state among true liberals, humanists and progressives.

He said:

a)

After 44 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, "it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated," PLO Ambassador Maen Areikat says. "After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated," Maen Areikat, the PLO
ambassador, said during a meeting with reporters sponsored by The
Christian Science Monitor.

That, of course, would be the first country to officially prohibit Jews since Nazi Germany.

It also would assist those forces in Israel who might suggest all the Arabs resident in the state should move into the new "Palestine".

I have used that argument, together with the suggestion to start terming Arab cities and villages in israel as "settlements", to pressure our liberals and ask them if they accept the Pal. position, why not this theoretical Jewish position.

Areikat further said

"We are trying to preserve the concept of a two-state solution and to make the Israelis understand there will be consequences for their actions."

But isn't that a two-edged sword? Are the pals. never to assume the responsibility for their actions and their consequences?

And read more here.

^