Noura Erakat Speaks Her Mind. Well, I just saw Bill O'Reilly interview Noura Erakat on tonight's No Spin Zone. She was pretty clever dodging his questions ... especially on the issue as to whether or not Israel has a right to exist. Here's a short portion of her address to the D.A.W.N. anti-Israel Rally 7/26/2006 in which she states that "Palestine has been occupied since 1948." That puts her squarely in the arms of those who want to see the entire state dismantled. The 1967 borders are the recognized starting point for negotiations (supposedly) by all parties willing to negotiate. "1948" translates roughly as "into the sea". Dodge this. And, yes, let's put it to rest and move on: she's quite a babe. A crazy lefty babe, but a babe nonetheless. Just to be clear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If she's a crazy left "babe", then I'm definitely a right "babe". ;) But, I'm definitely not crazy.
As soon as she opened her mouth, all I could think about was my testicles jumping back into my stomach. About as hard to l;isten to as Alanis Morissette.
1948 does not mean "into the sea". she was simply making a point of the length of time the occupation has lasted.
Right. And, since before 1948 the State of Israel did not exist, the difference is ... ?
What she is saying is what many people already know, but it's difficult to pin people like Erakat down because she keeps dodging the question or outright lying.
Viz: When the Arab world, in discussing "peace" with Israel, asks that Israel remove to the 1967 borders (based on UN Resolutions) that is only the beginning of the deconstruction of the state. If the "occupation has lasted" since 1948 then you and she are clearly including areas "occupied" before 1967. In other words the remainder of Israel. Hence "into the sea".
If the Arab world isn't including areas "occupied" before 1967 in their "peace" plans and is conceding those to Israel, then why mention 1948? What was "occupied" since 1948? And if there were areas "occupied" since 1948 what's with asking Israel to remove to the 1967 borders? Why not be honest and say what you really mean?
The point here is (obviously) that Ms. Erakat has never (to my knowledge) publicly used that date, but has always either tacitly accepted the Arab world's party line of "the 1967 borders" as the point to which Israel must remove before there can be "peace", or she has dodged the question as she did with O'Reilly the night before. By using 1948 as the start date of the "occupation" then it's clear that any mention of "1967" is just a ploy and that if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders then more demands will follow.
In other words, she's finally come clean. Publicly. And so have you.
Post a Comment