I mean, another major event this past week in New York was the annual UN General Assembly fall session in world leaders come to orate, with one of the stars being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose crackpot remarks about 9-11 prompted 33 states to leave the hall in protest.

Okay, but why not when dozens of other leaders, including Obama, give speeches supporting the mythical Ancient Palestinians and their putative need for and rights to a state in the heart of the heart of the Land promised to the Jewish people in the Bible?

I mean, if Israel were not so neurotic about its Jewish identity, it would exploit Ahmadinejad’s Muslim madness – there are hundreds of millions like him – to equate his delusional understanding of 9-11 as the so-called “truthers” understand it, as an inside American plot, with the myth of the “Palestinians”? There is a connection.

What Israel should do but never does is marry the madness of these loopy Muslims when it comes to 9-11 to their equally flakey history of Zionism and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

They are really different facets of the same Muslim mishegass…

The aerial photo makes clear this is a community like most of them in Judea and Samaria planned by civil engineers and urban planners, with its roads, homes, schools, grocery stores, playgrounds, synagogues and mini-parks, etc.

And also visible in the photograph next to Beit Aryeh is the Arab settlement called Luban al-Arabiya, which is obviously a little nothing of a scruffy collection of disorganized dwellings – though of course the caption writer at the Herald Tribune called Beit Aryeh – which dwarfs Luban al-Arabiya – a “settlement,” connoting something, new, and I guess moveable/destroyable, versus the “town” that is Luban al-Arabiya, which connotes something permanent, an organized community, when the photograph tells the opposite story.

Also shown is the plenty of land separating the two communities, areas than can be built upon in the future.

Before your eyes is a kind of graphic emblem of the Zionist movement: here is a planned, organized community purposely building its society – versus a smattering of structures in an unplanned mess which is dwarfed by its Jewish neighbor.

What came to mind were the words of the Gentile Prophet Balaam in the Book of Numbers, who came to curse the Children of Israel but instead, what came out of his mouth was praise and wonder: He said, “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, thy dwellings Yisrael.” Balaam had been summoned from afar to the Sinai Wilderness to curse the Jews but when he saw their encampment, he had nothing but praise for the amazing sight of 12 Tribes, over a million people, some say over two million, living in an organized community of laws, peacefully – versus the life of tribesmen into this century over 3,000 years later for whom life is what Thomas Hobbes called brutish. For example, the life of still basically tribal Arabs in Algeria, in Lebanon, in Iraq where daily they have butchered one another in satanic acts of serial massacres.

Here in this photo is this planned, hilltop community of thousands of Jews living next to this miserable scattering of probably a few hundred Arabs.

This is the story, in a nutshell, of the return of the Jewish people to its Land…

This is pathetic and worst of all, the editor of this newspaper on Friday defended the editing because it truly reflects, he said, the “leading role of Mubarak in the peace process.”

Israel needs to tell the world: this is with whom we are dealing. This is the editor of this venerable newspaper; this is not some marginal crank. The Arabs are so backward and have such little regard for objective truth as the civilized West understands that idea, the idea of friendly peace with them is a fantasy.

Israeli leaders never address the ocean of antisemitic bilge that the Arab-Muslim Middle East swims in, so that their version of truth and therefore of justice between us Jews and the Arabs in our ancient homeland is a pipedream.
All we can hope for is a state of no war until perhaps the end of days when these tribal primitives opt for civilization and peace with one of its progenitors, us Jews…

Unfortunately, Bibi is ill-served by his own formulation. Were I advising him, I would phrase the demand differently in order to clarify the issue. Instead of asking Abbas & Co. to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, I would demand they recognize the rightness of Jews having their own state in their ancient homeland.

For what the sneaky Arabs have done in “recognizing Israel’s right to exist” as Hanina sees things is more of what they have always done, which is play word-games. In fact, contrary to Hanania’s claim that the “Palestinians” have recognized Israel’s right to exist, they have never repealed the PLO Covenant’s clauses calling for the destruction of Israel, as Netanyahu and Clinton claimed in 1998. In fact, in December 1988, they did not do that either as Secretary of State George Schultz at the time claimed they did, which led to U.S. acceptance of the claim Arafat had finally spoken the “magic words,” and therefore the U.S. chose to open talks with those enemies of not only the Jewish people but Western civilization.

What happened at the time was this…

Last Wednesday, in the Herald Tribune, James Carroll was at it again with a third piece on Israel in recent weeks, which exposed once again his own miserable ignorance of the history here, even as he tries to anchor his antiJew views in history. Listen to this: In referring to Haj Amin, he wrote: “Caught between British colonial pressures and the surge in European Jewish arrivals [in the inter-war years] and needing to forge an expressly Palestinian as opposed to Pan-Arabic consciousness, Husseini took a page from the old book of Christian anti-Judaism. He promoted positive Palestinian identity by casting Judaism as a negative foil.”

If James Carroll were listening, I would tell him, “Sir, you don’t know what you are talking about.” Everything here is wrong. This is a concatenation of one mistake after another. He makes it seem as if Haj Amin was caught between British pressure and Jewish in-migration that pressured him to take a page from Christian anti-Judaism.

This has zero grounding in historical fact; none whatsoever. Haj Amin was a Muslim Jew-hater; Christian antiJewism had absolutely nothing to do with his hostility to the Jewish people and of course the Zionist enterprise burgeoning all around him.

And as for having “promoted a positive Palestinian consciousness as opposed to a Pan-Arabic one”: Lord have mercy, this has no bearing on what Haj Amin was all about. He established the newspaper “Southern Syria” to deny the very existence of a country called Palestine, because the geography had no meaning to him. It had meaning then only to Jews and Christians. The League of Nations Mandate was about creating such a map that had not existed in fourteen centuries of Islam. That is why he said, “No, this is Southern Syria.” It was the secular Zionists who were creating a “Palestinian” identity.

Carroll goes on to write that during WWII “On the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, he threw in with Hitler and played the Nazi stooge throughout the war.”

The principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” had nothing to do with what he did. This was a Muslim murderer, an assassin who had ignited pogroms in Jerusalem in 1920 and Jaffa in 1921 before he ever heard of Hitler. His principle was his loathing of Jews which was as powerful for him as it is for Ahmadinejad today.

So it was refreshing to see in this morning’s JPost Naftali Bennett defining the menace to our lives as coming from “an ocean of radical Islam’’ – though I would dispute the necessity and even rightness of adding the adjective “radical,” which implies there is another, non-radical kind, which is nonsense. If Islam was not seen as a threat prior to the rise of Khomeini in 1979, that is because it was just quiescent. Historically, Jihad is at the core of Islam. It is by nature a crusading, aggressive ideology, which befits the seed of Ishmael, that highway robber.

Islam is nothing but the theft of Judaism’s notion of a Chosen People and a perversion of the Torah’s injunction to the Chosen People to dispossess the Canaanites and Philistines from this tiny little country.

Islam perverts that and claims the right to dispossess every nation in the entire world…

In Arabic, the first group was called those who were “fil harij,” and the second called “fil dakhil,” meaning those “outside” the land and those “inside” the land under Israeli occupation, who had obviously two very different agendas.

In 1967 right after the Six-Day War, there were prominent Arabs in Judea and Samaria with businesses and property and homes who were ready to recognize Israel’s right to exist on condition Israel withdrew from what had been Jordanian-occupied land.

And there was no shortage of Israelis ready for such a deal. I was not an Israeli yet at the time but supported that too. And it was bandied about in media. Right off the bat after the war there was talk of such a state for the Arabs in Judea and Samaria in both Israel and Arab circles in Ramallah in Hevron, in Jericho, etc.

But Arafat and Abbas eventually put a stop to such talk by murdering local leaders who spoke that way; of a state in Yosh only. That was in fact Fatah’s great fear, for that would mean the end of the aspiration of the refugees of 1948 to return to Tsfat, like Abbas, or Lod like George Habash. and Haifa for other Arabs who fled. For decades a state in Yesha was Yasir Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ worst nightmare…

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., a Bibi loyalist, a substitute mouthpiece for Bibi, praised Abbas last week for having condemned the terrorist slaughter four more Jews, when he did nothing of the kind. In condemning the attack at Beit Haggai, Abbas – exactly like Arafat used to and all these terrorist leaders – condemned all attacks on all people by all sides, which by implication attacks Israel for doing the same thing. In his alleged condemnation of last week’s massacre, he actually attacked Israel for committing such crimes.

But above all, and like so many times in the past, Abbas’ words of condemnation were not of the inherent evil of murdering people like that but of its negative impact on the Ancient Palestinian cause.

It is a playing with words akin to Abbas answering Bibi’s public request for mutual recognition between the Palestinian people’s right to a state and the Jewish people’s right to a state: as before, Abbas snorts, “The PLO recognized the State of Israel in the past, at Oslo, and does not have to recognize Israel as a state again” – which is not the same thing.

Word games. These Arabs, so many of them illiterate, are always playing word games.

While Bibi never goes on the offensive when attacked by Abbas, and in not doing so he leaves the impression the charges in the attack are true.

So his silence does Israel great harm…

And because they would not do that, they invented this “camouflage”” people, this “smoke-screen” nation to hide behind and say that the primary victims of Zionism were these “Palestinians” and that there could be no peace without including their interests in the negotiations. They had to return to the homes that they were driven from – and never mind only a statistically insignificant percentage suffered that fate. In historical truth, most just ran away.

Which fact was another major impetus behind the invention of the “Palestinians.” In historical fact, they ran away; they did not fight. And in fact one of the reasons they were abused by the Arabs over the decades was this fact, and they were held in contempt for it precisely because everyone knew these refugees were not driven from their homes; that they ran away. Never saw an Israeli soldier, most of them.

So what you do is make up a tall-tale, a new version of what happened, the Palestinian Narrative which reconfigures the refugees’ cowardice and transforms it into “Jewish injustice.”

Better to claim one was driven from one’s home by racist Israeli soldiers than to admit to never having fought for one’s home at all. ..