ANOTHER amazing scientific breakthrough from Israel: Virtual Cane for the Blind

JERUSALEM: Yissum Research Development Company Ltd., the technology transfer company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, presented a virtual cane that will significantly improve the orientation and mobility of sight-impaired people. This new device can assist blind people in estimating the distance and height of various obstacles. 

H/T AFHU

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

dying-arab-princess-life-is-saved-by-israeli-doctors

robot-surgeons-amazing-medical-advance-from-the-joooooos

let-them-rot

hamas-terrorist-whose-daughters-life-was-saved-by-israeli-doctors-is-behind-the-murder-of-an-israeli-policeman

what-do-you-think-the-mother-of-a-palestinian-baby-whose-life-was-saved-by-israeli-doctors-wants-for-her-son

a-little-arab-girl-with-a-big-jewish-heart

under-the-radar-jews-saving-arab-lives

israel-saves-the-life-of-a-top-hamas-official’s-daughter-but-arab-and-western-media-wont-report-it

not-all-israelis-are-bad

Did you know your taxpayer dollars are paying for Muslim terrorists in Israeli jails to have Smartphones and Facebook accounts?

For Muslim terrorists in Israeli prisons, life is more like a vacation. There, terrorists mingle, throw parties, study for advanced degrees and stay in touch with their adoring fans on Facebook using their 3G mobile smartphones.

FRONTPAGE (Daniel Greenberg) -And guess who is paying for it all? We are. And Europe. The Palestinian Authority acts as our middleman, requesting money for security and then doling it out to terrorists.

The Obama Administration dramatically escalated aid to terrorists. In 2008,  it provided 600 million dollars worth of assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In 2009, it pledged 900 million dollars. By 2010, the PA had pulled in almost 4 billion dollars from international donors, including the US. But that hasn’t stopped Prime Minister Fayyad from denouncing US aid as “extortion”. Foreign aid makes up 60 percent of its Gross National Product. The Palestinian Authority does not have an economy. It has foreign aid.

Six years ago, Saeed Shalalde stabbed an Israeli chocolate manufacturernamed Sasson Nuriel to death. Today Shalalde lives the good life in an Israeli prison.

Hamas terrorist Haytham Battat, who was responsible for the murder of four Israelis, uses his Facebook page to share Jihadi videos from YouTube. In his recent facebook photos, PFLP terrorist Saeed Omar, who was sentenced to nineteen years in jail, poses with his favorite soccer team’s banner, feasts with other terrorists on a table covered with dozens of dishes supplemented by bottles of Coca Cola, and posts scraps of poetry calling for the destruction of Israel.

Using a 3G smartphone, Omar is able to update his own Facebook ‘fan page’ from prison. Other terrorists use smartphone video to go shopping with their friends and pick out their own clothes, which are then brought to them in prison, and remotely attend family events. Sometimes it seems like they’re not even in prison.

Muslim terrorists like Shalade, Batta and Omar refuse to recognize the existence of Israel. And thankfully they’re not forced to watch television programming from the Zionist entity. Instead they enjoy satellite Arab TV channels. Courtesy of the Israeli prison system.

Buying treats and luxury goods isn’t a challenge either. Every convicted Muslim terrorist receives a salary from the Palestinian Authority. Even members of Hamas. That money is provided by American and European taxpayers. As much as 10 percent of the Palestinian Authority’s budget is dedicated to paying the salaries of imprisoned terrorists, benefits to their families and the families of terrorists who weren’t lucky enough to end up in Israeli prisons, but tried to shoot it out instead.

With that money, Muslim terrorists not only eat better than Jewish prisoners, they even eat better than the prison guards who watch over them. While the orphans of the men and women they murdered go hungry, their murderers stuff themselves like pigs in prisons that exist in name only. Waiting for the day when Israel will agree to exchange a thousand of them for a single hostage.

The estimated 100 million dollars annually that goes to benefits for captured or killed terrorists shows what big business terrorism is for the Palestinian Authority. Both the terrorist attacks and the good life that terrorists enjoy in prison is subsidized by aid money from governments that claim to oppose terrorism. And then go on to subsidize it anyway.

The Palestinian Authority is run by terrorists. The shortest path to the top is to form your own terrorist cell and begin murdering Israeli civilians. And the reward is a chance to dip into the golden river of foreign aid and divert some of it their way. Terrorists who are on the loose enjoy wealth and international respect. And even when they are captured, they receive kid glove treatment in prison.

One of the HAMAS mansions in Gaza

The Israeli example is not unique. Muslim terrorists live on the dole in every Western country. Major newspapers give them flattering profiles and taxpayer money is pumped into their organizations. And still they cry that they are persecuted. Tormented, abused and deprived of their rights.

The truth is not what you see on TV. The truth is that there are “refugee camps” full of mansions paid for by international aid. The truth is that terrorists in prison are gorging themselves on luxuries paid for by American taxpayers and preening for their admirers on Facebook using smartphones that many American and Israeli families can’t afford. The truth is that terrorism is big business. And we’re the ones picking up the tab.

The tidal wave of human rights accusations leveled at Israel has caused the government to bend over backward to show how well it treats Muslim terrorists. IDF soldiers operate under tightly restricted rules of engagement, similar to those which are causing serious US casualties in Afghanistan. And Israeli prisons turn a blind eye to terrorists posting propaganda on Facebook from inside their own walls.

APPLE removes application for 'THIRD INTIFADA' (suicide bombings against Israel)

U.S. computer giant, Apple, announced it had pulled an application called ‘Third Intifada’ from its App Store for iPad and iPhone devices after a complaint by Israel.

 JERUSALEM -The app was removed because it was considered offensive to large groups of people (No, just to Jews), said Apple. It gave users information about a possible Palestinian uprising and potentially violent anti-Israel protests.

The firm took the step after receiving an official letter of complaint filed by Israeli Minister of Public Affairs and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein.

The application allows users to post the times and locations of upcoming protests, articles and news critical of Israel and to upload pictures of people who committed violent attacks, the Ha’ aretz daily reported.

In a statement released on Thursday, Edelstein “commends” Apple ‘s “quick action,” saying that “this is an additional step in preventing hostile elements, which are frequently tainted by anti- Semitism, from spreading incitement via the ‘new media’.”

In a similar move two month ago, Edelstein lead a successful campaign to remove a Facebook group with thousands of users, that also called for a third intifada, charging that it used threatening and hateful language.

A quick search through Apple’s App Store on Thursday revealed that the Third Intifada app had been removed, though, as local Yediot Aharonoth newspaper reported, it was still active on Wednesday.

DEAR DELTA AIRLINES: Can we talk about your new 'Judenrein' (Jew-free) policy?

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, asks Delta CEO Richard Anderson why he is allowing his airline to be hijacked by Muslim religious bigots?

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Pardon me for communicating with you this way, but you fobbed off inquiries by others to your Customer Care e-mail department. Since I represent 400,000 constituent families of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I thought it would be more appropriate to communicate this way and let the rest of the American people in on an outrageous situation.

What would happen if a leading U.S. carrier voluntarily allows itself to be hijacked by bigots in order to open a new market? For example, what if it entered into an agreement with a foreign airline that would see to it that no blacks or Catholics or gays boarded code-shared flights destined to reach the partner’s home nation?

I think you know the answer.

Yet, that is what Delta Airlines appears to have done when your company announced plans to add Saudi Arabian Airlines to your SkyTeam Alliance. You see, under their rules, they require that Delta ban Jews and holders of Israeli passports from boarding flights from New York or Washington bound for Jeddah.

As a Delta spokesperson Kathy Johnston so elegantly put it to customer Jeffrey Lovitsky:

“Delta must also comply with all applicable laws in every country it serves and by the same token passengers are responsible to obtain the necessary traveldocuments required for entry into another country prior to their day of travel,” she wrote. “If a passenger travels without proper documents, the passenger may be denied entry into that country and our airline may be fined. Delta assumes responsibility for ensuring that each passenger boarding our aircraft has the proper documents for travel to their ticketed destination.”

We certainly wouldn’t want Delta to be fined for failing to enforce the racist, religious apartheid laws of Saudi Arabia. And our community is certainly deeply appreciative of the advice to contact the U.S. State Department – which is a polite way of telling us to go away and leave you alone to make your money in peace.

Mr. Anderson, I know that Delta cannot make any sovereign nation change its laws, but did anyone hold a gun to your head to cut this deal? Did you utter a word of protest during your negotiations with your partners over the Judenrein policies of Saudi Arabia? Did you ask Secretary of State Clinton to try to intervene in this matter?

I’ll tell you what the Simon Wiesenthal Center is doing. We are drawing a straight line to the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to ask that Congress to check into the deal to see which laws Delta may have broken. But what is already clear is that Delta has broken the trust of American Jewry and degraded the cherished right of Religious freedom.

Mr. Anderson, I will be happy to fly to your Atlanta headquarters to discuss this matter with you but I won’t be flying Delta to get there.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Delta #6340597357

FOX NEWS (H/T Shawn)

Looks like the Republican who took Obama’s senate seat isn’t impressed with Delta’s response about  their new code-sharing deal with Jew-hating Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Kirk wants FAA to investigate alleged religious discrimination by Delta

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (R) called Friday for the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate allegations Delta Airlines blocked Jewish passengers from flying as part of an agreement with a Saudi Arabian airline.

USA Today reported Thursday on rumors circulating Internet that as part of Saudi Arabian Airlines’s agreement to join Delta’s SkyTeam alliance, Delta would enforce a Saudi ban on passengers from Israel and non-Islamic religious artifacts.

Delta denied the accusation, saying it had a nondiscrimination policy, but Kirk still called for an investigation Friday.

“I am deeply concerned by the June 23, 2011, report in USA Today entitled ‘U.S. Jews not able to fly on Delta flights to Saudi Arabia,’” Kirk wrote in a letter to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “If true, this policy appears to violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause while undermining the purpose of the Federal Aviation Administration – to promote the safety and expansion of U.S. civil aviation.

RELATED STORY:

delta-airlines-to-adopt-no-jews-policy

FRANCE: Left wing 'pacifists' and pro-palestinian terrorist supporters beat up 3 pro-Israel demonstrators in Marseille

Apparently, hysteria over the second useless flotilla to Gaza has begun.

H/T ThisHouseOfCards

YAIR NETANYAHU: Like Father, Like Son!

YAIR NETANYAHU

An Israeli newspaper reported that one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sons had posted anti-Islamic remarks on his Facebook page. “Terror has a religion and it is Islam,” the Haaretz newspaper said Yair Netanyahu, who is also a soldier in the Israeli army, wrote after a Jewish family was killed in March in the occupied West Bank.

REUTERS (H/T lanastaslem) -Two Palestinian men were later charged with killing the young couple and their three children. Haaretz said the posts were deleted after it inquired about them and were no longer visible on Yair Netanyahu’s page.(What a shame, the statements should have stayed up. After all they are true)

David Shimron, a lawyer for the Netanyahu family, did not deny the report but called it a “ridiculous and cynical use of a teenager’s comments.” Shimron also said the younger Netanyahu had “expressed himself in an informal virtual forum” and that he “respects all people and is ready to live in peace in Israel with people of all identities.”

Amongst other comments Netanyahu was said to have posted were that Palestinians “have no land, this is part of Israel, never in history was there a Palestinian state.”He also said that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

Sons of the Prime Minister, YAIR & AVNER NETANYAHU

ANOTHER Blood Libel fake photo from the Pallywood propaganda machine

Palestinians have posted this photo on FaceBook which purports to depict an Israeli soldier standing on the chest of a Palestinian child while her distraught mother looks on. Problem is, the gun the soldier is holding is a Russian-made Kalashnikov, something the Arabs use. The IDF uses American-made M-16 rifles. The green uniform and black gloves are also evidence that they are Palestinians, NOT Israelis.

Aschkel (H/T Susan K)

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

pallywood-whos-inciting-whom-here

pallywood-fakes-a-lot-of-the-carnage-you-see-in-videos

pallywood-fakestinians-are-up-to-their-old-dirty-tricks

latest-pallywood-propaganda

pallywood-propaganda-has-nothing-on-the-biased-western-liberal-media

Making a case for ethnic cleansing of Muslims

Highly controversial Israeli historian Benny Morris is the man who, in a notorious interview with Haaretz in entitled “Survival of the fittest”, supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in 1948 and only regretted that the Zionist leadership had not gone further.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST (Haaretz is a far left Israeli media outlet)

HAARETZ: Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

MORRIS: “In certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.”

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

“A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it’s better to destroy.”

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

“If you expected me to burst into tears, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that.”

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

“I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.”

You do not condemn them morally?

“No.” “There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide – the annihilation of your people – I prefer ethnic cleansing.”

And that was the situation in 1948?

“That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

The term `to cleanse’ is terrible.

“I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.”

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

“I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

“Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them.”

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

“That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.”

And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.

“That’s what emerges.”

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

“You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.”

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

“If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.”

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

“If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself.”

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

“But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.”

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

“If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.”

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

“The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.”

Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren’t always like that, were you?

“My turning point began after 2000. I wasn’t a great optimist even before that. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and Acre and Jaffa.”

If that’s so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.

“Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and conciliation.”

Did you really believe Arafat wanted to throw us into the sea?

“He wanted to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. The entire Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is driven by the phased plan. That’s why the Palestinians are not honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the time comes. They can’t tolerate the existence of a Jewish state – not in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel.”

If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is signed, it will soon collapse.

“Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It’s the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume.”

Your prognosis doesn’t leave much room for hope, does it?

“It’s hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I’m already fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don’t know if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won’t see a good, normal life here in the decades ahead.”

Aren’t your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of terrorism?

“The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don’t see the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us.”

Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the occupation, the roadblocks, the closures.

“The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don’t see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren’t blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture.”

Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?

“There is a deep problem in Islam. It’s a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide.”

Who is the serial killer in the analogy?

“The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers.”

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

“We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us.”

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

“Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.”

Then what is your solution?

“In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant, to defend the country as far as is possible.”

The iron wall approach?

“Yes. An iron wall is a good image. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our presence here. He was right. That’s not to say that we don’t need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience, it’s important that we strive for a political solution. But in the end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone. Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating us.”

Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality in the terms of Samuel Huntington?

“I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and they may also destroy it.”

The Muslims are barbarians, then?

“I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians – the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is today is barbarian.”

And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome of our time?

“Yes. The West is stronger but it’s not clear whether it knows how to repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within.”

The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?

“The possibility of annihilation exists.”

Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?

“The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn’t reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn’t reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it’s not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It’s possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here.”

If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs so wretched, maybe it’s a mistake?

“No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here that lives in harmony with its surroundings.”

Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel, tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.

“Yes. That’s so. You have pared it down, but that’s correct.”

Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that there is something inhuman about it?

“Yes. But that’s so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust, arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of cosmic justice, that’s terrible. It’s far more shocking than what happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in Palestine.”

The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is “Victims.” In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims of this conflict, we are the bigger one.

“Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also the greater potential victim. We are a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it’s possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late.”