Sniveling Mark Levine...meet a real man: MORT ZUCKERMAN

It's so easy to be a piffle-professor in La-la land. You work a few hours a day as a professor. You surround yourself with books and spend your time safely hidden in Academia, pushing your papers around with your polished fingernails, debating semantics, and engaging in pseudo-intellectual exercises. This, as if the problem in Gaza is at the same level as a problem word in a crossword puzzle where you can erase, or a recipe for gazpacho, where you might add a little more salt or pepper.

It's a bit different to be the publisher of the Daily News, and deal, every day, in cold facts. In seeing pictures that turn your stomach. In getting reports that stir revulsion and doubt about humanity.

And so, ironically, today's verbal masturbation from Professor Levine and his boyfriend in California, comes up against the stark contrast of Mort Zuckerman's editorial in The Daily News. Zuckerman, unlike Fox News, doesn't slant the reporting. Unlike Levine, he doesn't "spin" the truth. He didn't ask a reporter to write a story about Gaza that would be pro-Israel...he wrote an editorial and printed it as such. That's different from the conceit of MARK LEVINE who coyly presented his open letter to Jon Voight like he was scolding a foolish child who didn't know better.

MORT ZUCKERMAN is on the firing line.

MORT ZUCKERMAN's Daily News is not located on a campus somewhere, gated and secure. He could be picked off on the fucking street. The Daily News could be attacked by a suicide bomber. Yet, he has the guts to tell the truth anyway, high profile. That tells you something about him...compared to MARK LEVINE.

Unlike the London Daily Fail, Zuckerman didn't put aside an important topic just to show a photo of what Kim Kardashian wore last night.

Now here's the full text of Zuckerman's editorial.

It is very, VERY different from the smug, pseudo-intellectual snotty and condescending crap from Mark Levine published by Huff-Po.

If you don't know history, you don't know anything. Too much of the commentary on the relations between the Palestinians and the Israelis testifies to the validity of the late author Michael Crichton's dictum.

The ignoramus is a leaf who doesn't know he is part of a tree, and the hooligans parading in Paris, London, Seattle and Calgary with "end the Nazi occupation of Palestine" and Hamas-Hezbollah banners are part of an odious history of anti-Semitism.

The greatest obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians is quite simply a virulent jihadist hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. It cannot be appeased.

How Hamas turned Gaza into a base for murder, how Fatah went along and has frustrated every peace move for half a century, shows how both Palestinian factions have developed a theological and ideological justification that precludes any negotiation with Israel that might lead to a lasting peace.

By the prolonged indoctrination of anti-Semitic hatred in its schools and media, by its public celebrations of terrorists who have massacred Jewish women and children, and by its contempt for every two-state initiative from Israel, the Palestinian leadership has managed to convince Israelis and much of the international community that the goal of the Palestinians is to delegitimize the Jewish state and not to live alongside it.

This is captured in the Palestinian slogan Palestine is free "from the river to the sea." Since Israel is bordered to the east by the Jordan River and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea, this is a demand that the Jewish state disappear.

Look at the history. In 1936, the British government, in the exercise of its mandate for Palestine, set up a commission to look into the clashes between Arabs and Jews. It reported in July 1937 that the conflict was insoluble within a single state and required a partition. Jews should be allowed a small Jewish state in "the land from which the Jewish nation was born." The demarcated area, an enclave along the coast from Tel Aviv northward, accounted for about 20% of the mandate territory, leaving the remainder to the Palestinians.

The Zionists thought the division historically unfounded and unfair. They would have resisted, but they were moved by the mortal threats Jews were facing in Germany at a time when the haven of the United States was largely closed to them. Desperate for any program to save Jews, the Zionists reluctantly accepted the commission's partition plan. Not so the Palestinians, who rejected partition and instead initiated an armed revolt. They vowed to drown the fledgling Jewish state in rivers of blood.

For the next 75 years, a Zionist willingness to compromise was met by Palestinian rejection embedded in a deep-rooted hatred of Jews. So much so that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the most powerful leader of the Palestinian people in the 1930s, became a Nazi collaborator. He promised to aid the Nazis by stirring up the Arabs to fight the British and overseeing Arabic language Nazi propaganda that spoke of the affinities between the hatred for Jews of Islamic people and the Nazis.

Quite simply, the Palestinian view was "no" to partition, "no" to a Jewish state, "no" to a Jewish presence in what they considered Arab land. The Jews must never be allowed to share the land or achieve political sovereignty.

In May 1948, shortly after the United Nations endorsed the creation of a small independent Jewish state with a partition plan, elements of five regular Arab armies (those of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon) invaded Israel. After a year of fighting, the new Jewish state won a decisive victory and the Palestinian Arabs were the losers. The Arabs, however, not only resisted Israel's creation but also refused to understand that the penalty for starting a war is to lose land and sometimes sovereignty with it.

The story ever-after is heartbreaking for the people with most to gain from peace — that is for the Jew and Arab alike. The world has long urged a settlement on both parties, but only one has been willing to listen.

The nihilism of the Palestinian leadership was graphically revealed when Israel voluntarily left the Gaza Strip. The Israelis didn't merely walk out. They bequeathed the Palestinians a thriving flower export industry in the form of 3,000 greenhouses. What was the Palestinian response? They destroyed the greenhouses, spent the money sent by the West not on schools, homes, roads, and hospitals but on missiles, tunnels and propaganda directed at killing Jews and fomenting hatred.

Three times in a decade, Israeli prime ministers have offered Palestinians an independent state. The Palestinians said no. Why? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state. In the U.S.-sponsored summit at Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to the borders suggested by President Clinton that would have given the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. Astonishingly, it included the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem, making it possible for East Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital.

Again Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat refused and made no counteroffer, making clear he was not serious about a deal. Then he walked out of the negotiations and launched the second intifada that killed many Israelis. In December 2000 an even sweeter deal was offered, the so-called Clinton parameters, and Arafat walked again.

Then in 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made "the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands," said Charles Krauthammer in a 2011 op-ed, offering close to 100% of the West Bank with land swaps, Palestinian statehood and the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine.

The current prime minister is portrayed as stubborn. It is forgotten that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who brought his Likud coalition to an open recognition of a Palestinian state, thus creating a first national consensus for a two-state solution. And what was the response of the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas? He boycotted the talks for nine months.

Netanyahu went very far when they met. He agreed that some settlements would remain in sovereign Palestinian territory. He was the first prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze that lasted 10 months, something no Labor or Kadima government had ever done. He said yes to virtually every proposal, while Abbas said no.

Abbas walked out when the freeze expired, insisting on the so-called right of return of millions of Arabs made refugees by war and the unwillingness of Arab states to receive them. The right of return is simply a device to demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs.

Abbas knew it too well. He'd heard Olmert explain that he'd yielded so much to peace but he could not have Israel commit suicide. He made it clear that he could never allow some 5 million Palestinian refugees to enter Israel because that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Olmert even offered to turn over the city's holy places — including some of Judaism's most sacred sites — to an international body that included Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Did Abbas accept? No.

All this forgotten history underscores how dishonest is the claim that the Zionists came to Palestine with dreams of conquest and disposition of the indigenous people.

So, anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all by leaving the Jewish state still standing. Why is that? The Palestinians won't accept any land-for-peace deal. They want the land without the peace. They want sovereignty for themselves without a reciprocal recognition of the sovereignty of the Jewish state. They want statehood without negotiation and an independent Palestine that can continue its war with Israel.

You will know that Abbas is a serious partner for peace if he finally summons the courage to tell the refugees they are not going back to their ancestral homes in Israel, and that the peace negotiations will reflect the consequences of the 1967 war that they lost, not the 1948 war.

The Palestinian Authority cannot have an independent state on all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with no restrictions to prevent them from pursuing a second stage of wiping Israel off the map. They believe the West will always offer more if they are intransigent, and so their leadership radicalizes public opinion.

The Palestinian leadership has never put forth comprehensive proposals aimed at reaching a compromise, but instead has stated only impossible goals and never budged from them, remaining inflexible on its demands for territory, Jerusalem and refugees. When the dust settles, it always finds a way to blame Israel.

These days, Palestinians aligned with Hamas seek unilateral steps at the UN while they continue to refuse to engage in direct negotiations. The barrier to peace is a Palestinian Authority that still dreams of annihilating Israel, and Hamas, which is committed to its pledge to murder Jews.

The refusal of the Palestinians to embrace a two-state solution must surely be understood by President Obama. This refusal was revealed in the most recent negotiations involving former special envoy Martin Indyk, who stated in a recent interview that the U.S. believed it may have had sufficient flexibility and compromises from Israel to reach a breakthrough agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu was, he thought, "in the zone of a possible agreement."

A flexible Israeli leader willing to make substantial compromises for a peace agreement is once again met by a Palestinian leader who at a critical moment refuses to respond to the American proposal.

Today we have a hostile Palestinian entity in Gaza, ruled by Islamic terror organizations, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the forefront, an entity that is a virtual colony of Iran. Remarkably, the Obama administration decided to recognize the national unity government between Hamas and the PLO.

No wonder the administration has been criticized. Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida tweeted earlier this month, "The Obama Admin hasn't just let down our strongest ally Israel. It is emboldening Hamas and alienating others."

Israel's choices are not easy. It remains committed to a blockade that contains Hamas. It has won the battle, and must now think about how it can return to the negotiating table with an attractive offer that would underscore its commitment to a peaceful resolution.

Back in 2012, Israeli novelist Amos Oz put it as follows: "We cannot live like one happy family because we are not one, because we are not happy, and because we are not family," he said. "We are two unhappy families." He believes that what the Israelis and Palestinians need is a "fair if painful divorce." The divorced parties will live side-by-side and not one on top of the other.

Zuckerman is chairman and publisher of the Daily News.