• Home
  • MP3 Tracklists
  • Privacy Policy
  • The Family
  • What We Say

    The path to the present day, since the 1922 League of Nations Act to create Israel a homeland for the Jews, is marked by constant interjection of terms pretended to be neutral and not causative but which immediately become enshrined in International jargon used to vilify Israel. All peace conferences to date have interpolated such terms and Annapolis is no exception to this rule.

    photo: JPost
    Resting among the pleasant and innocuous sounding terms of the Annapolis Joint Declaration are typical gems intended to be exploited by the enemies of Peace. Hidden like land-mines, they are intended to explode in the faces and beneath the feet of all who pass this way, from this day on.

    No doubt, others with even greater sophistry can find additional curses laid upon the Human Race in this vile piece of double-speak but we can drag some easily into view, pale in the light of day and squirming at their quick and easy exposure.

    Para. 1: . . . terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis . . . Instantly we see the joint declaration, before the gathered nations, of Israel’s culpability for terrorism and incitement. It is now a stated and agreed fact that Israel is guilty, at least as guilty as the Arabs, of terrorism and incitement regardless of the fact Israel has had no letup from the need to Self Defence, even since before the UN re-partition in 1947. Instantly the victim of Arab attempts at genocide is confirmed a needless aggressor.

    The further extension of this clarion call of Israeli guilt is the phrases which precede it . . . . bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict . . ;. . , based on (a lack of) freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition . . . So it’s plain to be seen that Israel has been a very nasty enemy of the poor Arab victims drawn into their web of international intrigue, dominion and brutality. No doubt, as a result of this fortunate Annapolis intervention, all these inequalities can be put right!

    . . . . In furtherance of the goal of two states . . . Continuing the divergence from the 1922 stated Goal of establishing a Homeland for the Jews in their traditional Palestine (where the inhabitants were considered to be those of any race or religion who happened to be coincidentally resident, aside from those identified later, in 1947, as either specifically Jewish or Arab). So this Annapolis agreement further entrenches the false presumption that the League of Nations Act, the only Internationally Legal and Binding Act, envisaged more than one, Jewish, State. NOT considering the fact that the majority of the land thus designated was summarily divided, the far greater portion becoming Trans-Jordan and subsequently Jordan and being gifted, whole cloth, to the Arabs. Or at least to the Hashemite hangers on whom the British wished to ingratiate.

    . . . . resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements. . . . Absolutely entrenching in the mind the concept that all those NON-BINDING UN General Resolutions and their presumptive terminologies, including the French interpolation of the expression “Occupied Territories” must now be re-written into International Law. They are in fact not Law. Terms introduced by specious individuals for the sake of bolstering their personal standing and to justify ‘photo ops’ with ‘important international figures’ are legally only ‘articulate devices’ and are not Legally Binding International Law. Israel obtained its legality at the League of Nations in 1922. The British defaulted on their Mandate and sold off elements of Israel for the sake of ‘grace and favour’ dealings with Arabs and the French (in the case of the Golan Heights). Israel is not bound by British fault and in light of subsequent Arab Wars of Aggression, which Israel won, such British defaults should rightly be deemed null and void.

    So much for paragraph one of the “Annapolis Declaration”.

    Para. 2: . . . . to address all issues . . . The only and marked purpose of this specific phrase, it being pointless to negotiate without addressing the issues, is to further reinforce the concept that ALL ANCILLIARY TERMS which have been interpolated in past political statements and non-binding declarations must be incorporated to the Arab satisfaction.

    Historically, any failure by the Arabs to address any single element of such agreements is rebuffed on the basis Israel has not fully and unilaterally fulfilled all and every element of its share of such agreements. The Arabs lie, without even clenching their teeth. The moment any Arab leader conscientiously addresses any one of the ‘issues’ he will likely be assassinated for his trouble. There is no groundswell of Arab support for the existence of Jews in Israel or anywhere else in this world.

    Para. 3: presupposes Olmert and Abbas will follow-up and sustain negotiations. Either might be summarily deposed as a result of this agreement but we say nothing here.

    Para. 4: . . . . immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution . . issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003. which is of course not supported in Law, was never the intention of the only Law in force regarding the matter and which has been repeatedly demonstrated not to be a roadmap leading anywhere.

    . . . . form a . . . mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map . . . by which Israel is implied to be ceding Sovereignty to the United States of America! Israel cannot determine for herself?

    Para. 5: . . . . commit to . . . . the ongoing obligations of the (failed) road map . . . continuing the transparent errors of the past, whereby unelected sycophants posing as statesmen have lauded each other, drawn down upon themselves Nobel Prizes for Peace while entrenching terror and carnage further into the mantra of Mankind.

    . . . . The United States will monitor and judge . . . relegating Israel to Third World, Undeveloped Nation status and clearly stating the USA MUST be satisfied with results for International Law to be satisfied! . . . . the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States. Whereby the failures of the past become set in concrete as the failures of the future and removing from Israel’s grasp the reins to its own sovereignty.


    The idea embodied in this Declaration is, “Don’t ask us, we will ask you if we need further input on the status of your nation”.

    In effect, the USA has allied with the Arab World in declaring itself an antagonist in the anti-Semitic war of Jihad, under the guise of ‘elder statesman’.

    Two iconic images come to mind: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and . . a picture of ex-president Richard Nixon of the United States of America, with the caption. “Would YOU buy a used motorcycle from this man?”


    One Response to “PEACE IN OUR CRIME”

    1. Torpor says:

      New Site looks OK anyway, just empty compared to the old one.