Showing posts with label Middle East Conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East Conflict. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Message to Obama
Sunday, February 2, 2014
A Note from Roger Waters - February 1, 2014
Mr. Roger, starts his letter... In the past days I have written privately to Neil Young (once) and to Scarlett Johansson (a couple of times). Those letters will remain private. Sadly, I have received no reply from either. And so I write this note on my Facebook page somewhat in bewilderment.
Mr. Waters keeps writing:
"I am not going to attempt to list, either those laws(they are on the statute book in the Knesset for all to research) or all the other grave human rights abuses of Israeli domestic and foreign policy. I would run out of space. But, to return to my friend Scarlett Johansson." Scarlett, I have read your reposts and excuses, in them you claim that the Palestinian workers in the factory have equal pay, benefits and "Equal rights". Really? Equal Rights? Do they.....?
And Last But Not Least...
Mr. Waters - Ignorance Will Kill You!
In the end of the letter, Mr. Waters comes with a list of questions, which if he knew the reality of Human Rights in Israel, he would have the right answers:
* Do they have the right to vote? * Do they have access to the roads? * Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers? * Do they have clean drinking water?
* Do they have sanitation? * Do they have citizenship? * Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away? * Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment? * Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948? * Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?
* Do they have the right to self determination? * Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound? If these questions put you in a quandary I can answer them for you. The answer is, NO, they do not. The workers in The Soda Stream Factory do not have any of these rights.
Roger Waters Note on Facebook
Poster Note: No wonder why Neil Young and Scarlett Johansson didn't reply to your hypocrisy - They are bigger than you! Why do the best musicians in the world also think they are the best politicians? Who do you think you are, Mr. Waters? You are a great musician, but a little man!
Mr. Waters, if you need attention so badly, you got some, here are some replies from your fans:
* Noten Brook - Ben Red
Mr. Waters, Music is supposed to act as a bridge between people and cultures and not create a gap between them. Your attitude doesn't help to break the wall, it only makes it higher. The impression you make is that you're not really interested in bringing peace and co-existence in the Middle East and that's too bad because many of us here are… Maybe you've succeeded in convincing Pearl Jam not to come here, because you're sort of a "father figure" for them, but Neil Young is not a child and he will be here because he knows that music lovers are the same anywhere in the world.
* Dror Nahum
Roger is not building bridges towards peace either. only Hate. "Love and only love will break it down" (Neil young) i'm so sad for you Roger.
* Nimrod Goldstein
Hello Roger, I am an Israeli that loves your music and I tend to read your posts every time. I might not agree with them, but I respect your opinion. I don't think you understand the situation in Israel, but I'll leave that aside. You talk about Israel in 3 of your last 5 posts. Do you think that Israel is the source to all of the worlds problems? In the last 2 years, more than 100,000 people were killed in Syria. About 20,000 civilians were killed in Iraq in the last 3 years. I'm not sure that you're aware to this, but in the last 70 years in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 15,000 people were killed on both sides.
* Kelly Levy
Roger, your are known for very selective "Human Rights activism" (Syria, China and many other countries do not exist in your surreal map) - the true cause surfaces along with your hypocritical and uneducated stance.
Yaniv Vaydgorin
Is Israel really the biggest problem in the world right now?!? what about Syria? what about the Palestinians that live in Gaza under Hammas control? You know nothing about the conflict.
Both, Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace. Send your complains to Hammas, Iran and Hezbollah that funding terrorist attacks here. And if you really feel the need to criticize more, i suggest you'll criticize your own country and government that colonized half of the world and left it in a mess. Is that mean nobody should play in the U.K???
BTW: if you are wondering why there is a wall between us and them. you can call us psychos but we don't like to ride a bus and to explode. * Yoav Arden Each and every time I hear from you - you lose a bit more dignity. I, who spent 400$ to sit close and watch you take down the 'hatred' wall on stage. Now, I can go online and watch you bleed to death in order to build it up again. But it's only around yourself. You, who got spit on by a fan than wrote an album, now you spit in ours and think it's all well and good.
Do not get me wrong, you are entitled and even expected to have an opinion, and as Voltaire once said - I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. But don't force yourself on people with different opinions than yours, it's unbecoming and disrespectful. You are a Smart Englishman, I don't have to tell you that you're own country forced herself on other parts of the world.
Remember it every time you play a show in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and Ireland... (To simplify it for you - The British Empire has had Military Presence in more than 150 countries) Please, keep your thoughts to yourself, it's more honorable.
"Companies do business in China, which imprisons dissidents by the thousands. Companies trade with Bangladesh, where workers in dangerous factories have died by the hundreds. Only Israel, which protects basic human and civil and economic rights, is forbidden territory."
With a strong, clear stand — calmly citing “fundamental difference of opinion” — Johansson becomes the highest-profile celebrity to buck the load of BDS bull. Ever more power to her, and to those who may follow her example.
NY Daily News
A Response to Mr. Roger Waters
Uri Silberman Roger Waters, since Scarlett Johansson has the good sense not to answer your pitiful letter to her begging her to hate Israel like you do, I will answer the questions you posed, not for your benefit (because I believe your hatred has blinded you of the real facts), but for those who are genuinely unaware of the following facts:
Q: Do they have the right to vote?
A: Yes they do, they vote for their Palestinian leadership. In the previous elections, they voted for Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Israeli Arabs can vote in the Israeli Knesset.
Q: Do they have access to the roads?
A: Absolutely! I drive through Samaria every single day, and trust me, it's FULL of Palestinian drivers.
Q: Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?
A: The Israeli barriers have one purpose only. To prevent Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli and Jewish towns and murdering it's citizens. A day doesn't go by without a Palestinian being caught at one of these barriers with some sort of weapon. How many lives do you think have been saved because of these barriers? Countless! So with all due respect, I think saving lives takes priority over someone having to wait while being checked at one of these barriers. Or perhaps you don't think that Jewish lives are worth as much as Palestinian time? Perhaps you think that Jews don't have rights to live?
Q: Do they have clean drinking water?
A: Yes they do. I know a lot of Palestinians, and they all have drinking water. And I'm not just referring to those Palestinians who illegally tap into the national water system.
Q: Do they have sanitation?
A: Why don't you ask the Palestinian Authority who's responsibility it is to take care of Palestinian sanitation?
Q: Do they have citizenship?
A: Yes they do, most have Palestinian citizenship, some have dual Jordanian/Palestinian, and others have yet other Arab countries' citizenship, not to mention Palestinians withIsraeli citizenship.
Q: Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?
A: Anyone who deals with terrorism should and can be arrested. I assume that is who you are referring to, right? Terrorists? I can assure you that a very large majority of Palestinians have not had their doors kicked in and their children taken away. Additionally, if I, as an Israeli Jew, was to harm anyone in a violent matter as Palestinian terrorists do, my door would also get kicked in and I would be put in Jail. I think anyone in any country in the world faces these same conditions if they were to carry out violent attacks against someone.
Q: Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?
A: Of course they do. All Palestinian and Jewish prisoners are afforded an attorney, either one that they have paid for, or one that is appointed to them by the State if they can't afford one. And can we also mention at this point that Palestinian prisoners who serve jail sentences for terrorism in Israeli jails live in conditions that prisoners in Palestinian Authority jails could only dream of?
Q: Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?
A: Considering that Jews are the ones that were expelled from this land over around 2000 years ago, do we have this right in your opinion? The Palestinians who built homes on this land have built them on top of ancient Jewish towns and villages.
Q: Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?
A: Every human being should have this right. I wonder what their lives would have been like had the Palestinians accepted the numerous peace offers over the years that Israel has offered. It started in 1947 with their rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and continued in 1967 (Khartoum), 2000 (Camp David), 2001 (Taba), 2008 (Olmert offer), 2012 (Current negotiations).
Q: Do they have the right to self determination?
A: This is covered by the answer above. The question that needs to be asked is if that's what they really want? Don't you think that they should have accepted one of the above mentioned peace offers if they were really interested in self determination? Or perhaps they have far greater ambitions? Like ALL of Israel?
Q: Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound?
A: So Palestinian cultural life is ancient and profound, huh? Just how ancient is Palestinian culture in your opinion?
Here are a few more questions that you can answer:
* That might give us an idea of how ancient they are:
* When was Palestine founded and by whom?
* What were its borders?
* What was its capital?
* What were its major cities?
* What constituted the basis of its economy?
* What was its form of government?
* Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Uri Silverman - CEO of The Israel Network
Poster's Note:
Mr. Waters, too bad you are flashing your wonderful career down the toilet. Too bad you dirt the name of Pink Floyd Team, but no worries, Mr. Waters, we already know why David Gilmore is better musicians AND better man than you!!!
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
"Hamas Supporting Flotilla" Organizers IHH Suspected Of Having Links to Al-Qaeda
"You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all of the time..." -- Bob Marley
Turkish counter-terrorism police have raided the offices of an aid agency on the border with Syria, in what local media described as an operation in six cities against individuals suspected of having links to al-Qaeda.
[Link to the original Al-Jazeera story of arrests]
Hamas supporting Flotilla" organizers IHH who told the world they were bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, have been raided by Turkish authorities for ties to Al Qaeda.
Please see this video:
Israel has always maintained that the IHH could have brought the aid through Israel after screening for weapons, as is done every day. The IHH instead chose to attack the soldiers boarding the ship in order to create a media stunt -- which worked. 9 people were killed because of the melee those seeking "martyrdom" cased.
SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IS NOT "#HUMANITARIAN AID". DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.
Turkish counter-terrorism police have raided the offices of an aid agency on the border with Syria, in what local media described as an operation in six cities against individuals suspected of having links to al-Qaeda.
[Link to the original Al-Jazeera story of arrests]
Hamas supporting Flotilla" organizers IHH who told the world they were bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, have been raided by Turkish authorities for ties to Al Qaeda.
Please see this video:
Israel has always maintained that the IHH could have brought the aid through Israel after screening for weapons, as is done every day. The IHH instead chose to attack the soldiers boarding the ship in order to create a media stunt -- which worked. 9 people were killed because of the melee those seeking "martyrdom" cased.
SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IS NOT "#HUMANITARIAN AID". DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Hijacking the Holy Land - FULL MOVIE
'Hijacking the Holy Land' is a feature documentary that takes you behind the headlines and past the media bias against Israel.
Aiming to expose the truth behind the Middle East peace crisis, this documentary examines Palestinian government, educational and religious bodies that many claim promote hatred against Israel even as they talk of peace to the media.
This translates in to blatant bad faith, as they have been negotiating with Israel while operating a total war against the democratic state. The declarations made to the press are yet another entirely fraudulent aspect of this campaign that aims at nothing short of destroying Israel as an opening round of the efforts to reestablish the global caliphate both as revenge for the loss of the Ottoman Empire and due to religious compulsion of Islam to spread their beliefs by force when they have enough military power to do so. The prescient stage is known as "hudna" or strategic cessation of violence to allow building up resources for the soonest possible offensive phase. In fact one of the last caliphs, Mehmed V Reshad, declared a Jihad against the British and French at the outset of WWI as they joined the Germans.
Although hundreds of hours of history are required to debunk the lies and myths that have covered the facts in Israel funded by trillions of dollars of oil-wealth, you have to start somewhere. Using a timeline, the best starting point is probably this film here, which seems timely in view of the Palestinian Authority's effort to continue this moral equivalence that implies building settlements on public land at strategic points for security is to Israelis what suicide bombers are to Palestinian Islamic imperialists.
What does that mean? It means in rough terms that suicide bombers are not ideal, but after all, the Israelis are building on public land that the Palestinians simply assume is theirs even before establishing any of the de facto requirements of a state. It would be like a parent getting accused of stealing from a college fund of a child that has not yet been conceived.
Aiming to expose the truth behind the Middle East peace crisis, this documentary examines Palestinian government, educational and religious bodies that many claim promote hatred against Israel even as they talk of peace to the media.
This translates in to blatant bad faith, as they have been negotiating with Israel while operating a total war against the democratic state. The declarations made to the press are yet another entirely fraudulent aspect of this campaign that aims at nothing short of destroying Israel as an opening round of the efforts to reestablish the global caliphate both as revenge for the loss of the Ottoman Empire and due to religious compulsion of Islam to spread their beliefs by force when they have enough military power to do so. The prescient stage is known as "hudna" or strategic cessation of violence to allow building up resources for the soonest possible offensive phase. In fact one of the last caliphs, Mehmed V Reshad, declared a Jihad against the British and French at the outset of WWI as they joined the Germans.
Although hundreds of hours of history are required to debunk the lies and myths that have covered the facts in Israel funded by trillions of dollars of oil-wealth, you have to start somewhere. Using a timeline, the best starting point is probably this film here, which seems timely in view of the Palestinian Authority's effort to continue this moral equivalence that implies building settlements on public land at strategic points for security is to Israelis what suicide bombers are to Palestinian Islamic imperialists.
What does that mean? It means in rough terms that suicide bombers are not ideal, but after all, the Israelis are building on public land that the Palestinians simply assume is theirs even before establishing any of the de facto requirements of a state. It would be like a parent getting accused of stealing from a college fund of a child that has not yet been conceived.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Peace Now
"Land for Peace"September 15, 1938: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain set out for Germany to visit Adolph Hitler. Hitler wasn't asking for too much... just the liberation of the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia [Sudetenland]. It was a sweet little "Land for Peace" deal that would hopefully appease the Fuhrer. Fifteen days later the Sudetenland was handed over to Hitler. In exchange, Hitler gives his word that he has no other territorial designs on Europe.
October 1, 1938: Before the year ended, Hitler broke his agreement and occupied the remainder of Czechoslovakia. The following year Hitler invaded Poland. He continued to invade most of Europe, Africa, Russia and even bombed Chamberlain's very own Britain. Needless to say, the duped Chamberlain was replaced rather quickly by Winston Churchill. The Brits had THEIR fill of "Land for Peace!"
It would seem that the half-witted, idealist Jews of Peace Now have never heard of Neville Chamberlain, Adolph Hitler... maybe not even of World War II. They are asking Israel to simply hand over land (for peace) to those very enemies who have, since the day Israel came into existence, used that land as invasion routes into Israel. To simply hand over that land would be a treasonous and contemptible obscenity toward all those valiant men and women of the Israeli Defense Forces who fought and died securing it! There are enough Jew-haters in the world who wish to see the destruction of Israel and the outright slaughter of every Jewish man, woman and child. It is not necessary for self-hating, back-stabbing, low-life Jews to lend them a hand.
Famous Last Words...
"If Only Hitler Hadn't Lied"
~Neville Chamberlain~
Peace Now?
Job Opportunities Available Immediately For Psychological Profilers of Those Peaceniks Who Want to Negotiate With Terrorists!
Land For [Rest in] Peace
On October 21, 1985, former Peace Now member, Ron Levi [at left], was strolling through a forest near Jerusalem when he was shot through the head by an Arab... a bit of reality FINALLY piercing his thick Jewish skull. Poor Ron! He "felt their pain," alright... though not his own for he didn't even know what hit him! Yes, indeed! He felt the pain of those who dreamed of the day when every Jew in THEIR "Palestine" would be driven out or murdered just as he was. Because Ron would never stoop to their level, he now finds himself six feet BELOW their level and resting in "Peace Now." When will Ron and others like him ever learn!
No Pride - No Shame - NO MEMORY!
Peaceful Co-Existence?
Peaceful Co-existence.... All the Leftist Dreamers talk about is Peaceful Co-existence. And when asked for examples of Peaceful Co-existence between Palestinians and others.... well, we're all still waiting! Moslems and Arabs have shown time and time again that they are incapable (I repeat, INCAPABLE) of living in peace with anyone in the Middle East.
The PLO tried Peaceful Co-existence in Jordan but the diminutive King Hussein of Jordan realized they were not looking for Peaceful Co-existence at all but rather a violent takeover of his make-believe kingdom. So in September 1970 (so-called "Black September"), the little king did the right thing. He kicked their sorry arses out of Jordan. Oh, the poor displaced Palestinians!
So the PLO went into Lebanon for some more Peaceful Co-existence. Within a short period of time they instigated a 15 year civil war against the Lebanese Christians. After all, why should the Palestinian Moslems be subjected to the humiliation of having to "share" power when they preferred FULL power. So the PLO and Lebanese Moslems joined forces against Lebanese Christians! If THIS is what Arabs do to each other, one can imagine what they'd do to the Jews of Israel!
Peace Now [an off-shoot of Peace Instantly] says that if only the poor Palestinians (represented by the PLO murderers) were given the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem, there would surely be Peaceful Co-existence. It's just too bad thatNot all Jews are Smart! apparently no one has told Peace Now that the PLO was created in 1964... 3 years before ( I repeat, BEFORE ) the Arabs world would even lose control of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War (which THEY started)! In other words, the PLO was created to get back the land which they already had??? What silly logic... logic only some self-hating, dreamy-eyed, sniveling, hand-wringing, bone-headed Leftist Liberal egghead could come up with! I think it's about time someone informed the world that not all Jews are smart!
Self-hating Jewish Leftist Groups like Peace Now support the enemies of the Jewish People because THEY TOO are enemies of the Jewish People!
If There's TOO MUCH Land for Peace... There Won't Even Be Enough Room to Give Israel a Decent Burial!
The Oslo Accords were nothing more than WAR against Israel by another means!
Israel had better bury the peace process before the peace process buries Israel!
For over 50 years Israel has tried to live peacefully with the Arab world. For those same 50 years the Arab world has never stopped trying to destroy Israel. This never-ending struggle has eroded the determination of many Jews to continue the battle. It pushes tired men to seek half-baked solutions and foolhardy compromises that are the product of the desire to rest rather that of common sense! Thus, Israel must be prepared to fight another 50 Years!
The year 2000 began with the removal of the psychedelic dreamer, Ehud Barak, and the election of Ariel Sharon. The election of this right wing former general was no fluke. Even stupid, myopic left wingers can see when the coffin lid is being nailed down on them. Ariel Sharon was elected for precisely the OPPOSITE reason that Barak was. Barak was elected to "Give Peace a Chance"... Sharon to "Give Survival a Chance!"
There is only one way that Sharon can restore Israeli military deterrence after a decade of cowardice, appeasement, and self-debasement... and that is to USE the military. Since 1992 Israeli governments have given the Arabs every reason to believe that Israel has lost its will to survive and is perfectly willing to commit national suicide. No amount of talk and gestures now will repair this. Only massive military action will work... NOT a few "symbolic" assassinations and missile strikes on empty buildings! The Oslo Peace Accords and the notion of peace with those sworn to murder you are non-starters. It's time to turn the Palestinians into charcoal.
Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle [terrorism] against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, an Oct. 22, 2003 survey shows.
UPDATE: Be prepared for the United States to some day put Israel on the chopping block in order to secure "favors" from the Arab world, it's already started with Barrack Hussein Obama!
There are double factors at work here:
(1) American thirst for Arab oil and other global concerns and...
(2) the traditional Jew-hatred of the State Department that has driven foreign policy from one administration to another. Such appeasement didn't work for Hitler in the case of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and it will NEVER work if Israel is sacrifice to the Arab-Muslim Nazis now. Even Israel's Leftist dreamers will squirm when they feel the knife at their throats!
Masada 2000
Moshe Dayan - What In the World Were You Thinking?
It really DOES take a Jewish brain to come up with THIS brilliant idea. First you must defend your Nation against an attack by the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. After scoring a stunning victory and FINALLY regaining control of the Old City of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and its Western (Wailing) Wall... not to mention East Jerusalem, ALL of Judea/Samaria (the so-called "West Bank")... you laid the foundation for a monstrous betrayal of the Jewish People. The defeated Palestinian Arabs were all set to move out across the Jordan River into the make-believe Arab Palestinian country, Jordan. So what did you do? To prove to the world that Jews are a "Light Unto All Nations," you told the fleeing Arabs to stay put! This was the beginning of a humiliating Jewish policy that stunned no one more than the Moslems who could not believe such a manifestation of Jewish madness they had just witnessed! The defeated Arabs correctly understood Jewish concessions not to be a sign of goodness and grace, but of timidity and weakness! Most Arabs thought it was some incredible ploy for if THEY had defeated Israel, all Israel would have been one big pile of Jew meat. Ahhh, the Jew... always merciful, always democratic, always bent on self-destruction. Once again the Jews have proved that they themselves are their own worst enemy!Those defeated Palestinian Arabs DID stay and, after the double shocks of losing to the infidel Jews yet being allowed to remain in the Land of Israel by those same Jews, they simply picked up where they left off and rekindled their dream of driving these Jews into the sea. Almost daily we see visions of the Jerusalem and Hebron Riots of 1920, 1929 and 1936-9. We see Israeli buses with bullet-proof glass and new roads going AROUND Israeli Arab villages. We see Israeli Arab Knesset Ministers praising Hezbullah, Hamas, al-Aqsa Brigade, Islamic Jihad and all the other Arab terrorist groups and voting for EVERYTHING that is bad for Israel's well-being! And those "grateful" Palestinian Arabs, who so appreciated your generous offer to have them stay put, cheered as Iraqi missiles sailed over them and dropped into Israel... although I imagine their excitement abated somewhat when it was learned that those missiles carried only conventional explosives! What a sight that was indeed, Moshe. The Jews huddled into bomb shelters with gas masks while the appreciative Arabs partied on their rooftops! Allah surely is Great!
Moshe, you became a hero. A hero to them, not to us! On the fourth day of the war, for twelve glorious hours, the Israeli flag waved proudly over the Temple Mount as confirmation of the miracle just experienced by the Jewish People. But you ordered the Israeli flag taken down and you simply and incredibly handed over the administration of the Temple Mount to the Arabs, with the Jews retaining only nominal sovereignty over the site. Extraordinary! In victory, we left our holiest place in the hands of our enemies!
The Temple Mount is in Jewish Hands????
Your typically arrogant Leftist approach might have worked with normal enemies but not with proud Arabs. All the stars and bars on your chest cannot compete with the flames of "liberation" in their hearts. Yes, we Jews have a right to our ancient homeland. Yes, our return and rebuilding of Israel also brought in large numbers of Arabs seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living. Yes, we tried to live peacefully along side them. Yes, we're shown the patience of Saints even after their most heinous crimes took thousands of us. But they don't care a whit about any of that. They really believe that we are thieves. They don't want to share anything. They want us out! THEY WANT US DEAD!
Given this fact, Israel had better stop appeasing this enemy. They have chosen to kill us and drive us from the Land of Israel... if not all at once, at least in stages. They won't play by our rules. It is now time to end this double suicide called "Oslo" and "Wye." It is time to retake the "West Bank" [Judea/Samaria] and retain control over all of Jerusalem. It is time to point them east toward Jordan, north toward Lebanon and Syria, south toward Egypt or straight down into the Hell from which they they came. It is time to tell the world that Jews will no longer "play fairly" with those who come to murder. If it means behaving like normal people, then so be it!
Dayan Was Not the Only Jewish Genius Who Failed to Appreciate the Intentions of His Enemy...
"Stop being afraid. There is no danger that these guns will be used against us. The purpose of this ammunition for the Palestinian police is to be used in their vigilant fight against the Hamas. They won't dream of using it against us, since they know very well that if they use these guns against us once, at that moment the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will return to all the places that have been given to them. The Oslo Accord, despite what the opposition claims, is not irrevocable." Yitzchak Rabin
"Guns Don't Kill, Only People Kill." Shimon (Shame-On) Peres on CNN when asked if he regretted arming the Arafat's "Palestinian Authority" with Israeli weapons.Shimon Peres, the man who is more and more likely to go down in history book as as the only human in history who single-handedly destroyed his own country Lieutenant Colonel Shlomo Baum, of blessed memory, once described him... "Shimon Peres doesn't care if the entire state turns into a heap of ashes -- as long as he is standing at the top of the heap."
Masada 2000
The Hudibiyya Agreement
The desert warrior is considered shrewd to invite his enemies as honored guests for dinner only to jump across the table with scythes at the ready to slice up his guests beguiled by his charm.
Mohammed, the 7th century founder of Islam, once signed a 10-year peace treaty with the enemy Arabian tribe of Koreish. However, after only two years into the treaty, Mohammed's military position improved whereupon he tore up this "Hudibiyya" (also spelled Khudaibiya) Agreement" and slaughtered the Koreishites. The Middle East today is littered with inter-Arab peace treaties, alliances and friendship accords, not one of which has ever prevented a war! This Law of Hudibiyya dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to LIE [click link] and break agreements with non-Muslims." According to this precept, Arabs view an enemy’s readiness for peace as a weakness to be exploited. Violation of any signed accord they sign with infidels (or even fellow Muslims!) is "business as usual" as soon as it becomes advantageous to do so.
If Arafat, a member of the PA (Palestinian Authority), or any Arab on the street were to compare the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian people to the Hudibiyya Agreement, he would be suggesting that the treaty were only a temporary truce. Not only have cabinet ministers done just that... so has the leader of the Palestinian people! Speaking to a rally of his Fatah movement in Ramallah just Yasser Arafat and his Hudibiyya Peace Treaty with Israel Means Terrorism last November 16, 1998, Yasser Arafat said, "When we chose the peace of the brave [the Oslo and Wye Accords], we chose it with trust in the Prophet who agreed to the Treaty of Hudibiyya..." On numerous previous occasions (and certainly to be continued in the future), both Arafat and other senior PA officials have assured Arab audiences that their treaties with Israel are only "temporary truces" rather than genuine, permanent peace agreements.
And so while Israeli negotiators go to great pains to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and footnote every minute detail [eg. the Camp David Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty and the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Agreement] with the expectation that the document was as meaningful to their Arab negotiators as it was to them, the Arabs knew all along that their non-compliance would be tolerated! After all, it was their tradition to say anything AND sign anything, knowing full well that, by custom, culture and habit, that they could and usually DID walk away from treaties when it suited their purposes.
This "strategy of phases" was first adopted by the PLO's National Council (Cairo, Egypt) in 1974 when it became obvious that an outright military defeat of Israel was unlikely. A policy of destruction of Israel in phases was approved by first establishing a small PLO state and then later completing the total destruction of Israel. This goal may be soon realized as Israel prepares to withdraw from portions of its ancient homeland in the name of "peace."
The Jewish people have experienced 2,000 years of expulsions, massacres, pogroms and deceptions. Their tiny reborn Jewish State has, in its 55+ years of existence, experienced seven wars with the Arabs and continuous terrorism by numerous Palestinian groups, including its peace partner... the PLO! And now Israel is officially begun arranging the terms of its own suicide in the Oslo Accords, Wye Agreement, various Camp David "weekend" retreats and now the so-called Geneva Initiative... with more holes in it than Swiss cheese!
H-E-L-L-o-o-o-o-o... Wake up, Jews! Wake up Israel! Have you still not learned your lessons or will you continue to sit back in the name of "peace," light more candles and await new Holocaust memorials!
Is This What Peace is All About?
The Israelis and Arab "Palestinians" signed the Oslo Peace Accords in September of 1993. All statements by the Palestinian leadership with regards to the destruction of the State of Israel prior to that time were to be disregarded now that they had signed on to what Arafat himself described as the "peace of the brave." So what is one to make of the following statements issued well after 1993!
Jordanian Television (September 13, 1995) "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." ~Yasser Arafat~
Stockholm, Sweden (Jan 30, 1996)
"We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem. Peres and Beilin have already promised us half of Jerusalem. The Golan Heights have already been given away, subject to just a few details. We will take over everything including all of Jerusalem! We of the P.L.O. will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. ~Yasser Arafat~
Egyptian Magazine (May 2001)
Our agreements with the Israelis are like the Trojan horse. I explain to our people that this is the only way to get into the walls of Jerusalem, like the wooden horse the Greeks used against the Trojans." ~Faisal Husseini, Arafat's representative in Jerusalem~
Palestinian Television Jan. 11, 2001)
"We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean that we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre..we are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up... We have announced a number of times that from a religious point of view Palestine from the sea to the river is Islamic." [Note: Jaffa and Acre are Israeli cities.] ~Sheikh Ikrima Sabri - The Palestinian Authority appointed Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine~
Palestinian Television Sept. 1, 2000)
"We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are speaking about is 'Hudna', a temporary ceasefire. ~Arab "Palestinian" Knesset Member Abdel Maleh~
Masada 2000
Mohammed, the 7th century founder of Islam, once signed a 10-year peace treaty with the enemy Arabian tribe of Koreish. However, after only two years into the treaty, Mohammed's military position improved whereupon he tore up this "Hudibiyya" (also spelled Khudaibiya) Agreement" and slaughtered the Koreishites. The Middle East today is littered with inter-Arab peace treaties, alliances and friendship accords, not one of which has ever prevented a war! This Law of Hudibiyya dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to LIE [click link] and break agreements with non-Muslims." According to this precept, Arabs view an enemy’s readiness for peace as a weakness to be exploited. Violation of any signed accord they sign with infidels (or even fellow Muslims!) is "business as usual" as soon as it becomes advantageous to do so.
If Arafat, a member of the PA (Palestinian Authority), or any Arab on the street were to compare the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian people to the Hudibiyya Agreement, he would be suggesting that the treaty were only a temporary truce. Not only have cabinet ministers done just that... so has the leader of the Palestinian people! Speaking to a rally of his Fatah movement in Ramallah just Yasser Arafat and his Hudibiyya Peace Treaty with Israel Means Terrorism last November 16, 1998, Yasser Arafat said, "When we chose the peace of the brave [the Oslo and Wye Accords], we chose it with trust in the Prophet who agreed to the Treaty of Hudibiyya..." On numerous previous occasions (and certainly to be continued in the future), both Arafat and other senior PA officials have assured Arab audiences that their treaties with Israel are only "temporary truces" rather than genuine, permanent peace agreements.
And so while Israeli negotiators go to great pains to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and footnote every minute detail [eg. the Camp David Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty and the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Agreement] with the expectation that the document was as meaningful to their Arab negotiators as it was to them, the Arabs knew all along that their non-compliance would be tolerated! After all, it was their tradition to say anything AND sign anything, knowing full well that, by custom, culture and habit, that they could and usually DID walk away from treaties when it suited their purposes.
This "strategy of phases" was first adopted by the PLO's National Council (Cairo, Egypt) in 1974 when it became obvious that an outright military defeat of Israel was unlikely. A policy of destruction of Israel in phases was approved by first establishing a small PLO state and then later completing the total destruction of Israel. This goal may be soon realized as Israel prepares to withdraw from portions of its ancient homeland in the name of "peace."
The Jewish people have experienced 2,000 years of expulsions, massacres, pogroms and deceptions. Their tiny reborn Jewish State has, in its 55+ years of existence, experienced seven wars with the Arabs and continuous terrorism by numerous Palestinian groups, including its peace partner... the PLO! And now Israel is officially begun arranging the terms of its own suicide in the Oslo Accords, Wye Agreement, various Camp David "weekend" retreats and now the so-called Geneva Initiative... with more holes in it than Swiss cheese!
H-E-L-L-o-o-o-o-o... Wake up, Jews! Wake up Israel! Have you still not learned your lessons or will you continue to sit back in the name of "peace," light more candles and await new Holocaust memorials!
Is This What Peace is All About?
The Israelis and Arab "Palestinians" signed the Oslo Peace Accords in September of 1993. All statements by the Palestinian leadership with regards to the destruction of the State of Israel prior to that time were to be disregarded now that they had signed on to what Arafat himself described as the "peace of the brave." So what is one to make of the following statements issued well after 1993!
Jordanian Television (September 13, 1995) "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." ~Yasser Arafat~
Stockholm, Sweden (Jan 30, 1996)
"We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem. Peres and Beilin have already promised us half of Jerusalem. The Golan Heights have already been given away, subject to just a few details. We will take over everything including all of Jerusalem! We of the P.L.O. will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. ~Yasser Arafat~
Egyptian Magazine (May 2001)
Our agreements with the Israelis are like the Trojan horse. I explain to our people that this is the only way to get into the walls of Jerusalem, like the wooden horse the Greeks used against the Trojans." ~Faisal Husseini, Arafat's representative in Jerusalem~
Palestinian Television Jan. 11, 2001)
"We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean that we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre..we are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up... We have announced a number of times that from a religious point of view Palestine from the sea to the river is Islamic." [Note: Jaffa and Acre are Israeli cities.] ~Sheikh Ikrima Sabri - The Palestinian Authority appointed Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine~
Palestinian Television Sept. 1, 2000)
"We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are speaking about is 'Hudna', a temporary ceasefire. ~Arab "Palestinian" Knesset Member Abdel Maleh~
Masada 2000
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The End of Palestine
by Daniel Greenfield
In the spring of 1964, while the Vietnam War was underway, the space program had brought close up photos of the moon, and the Beatles were topping the charts; the Arab League convened to try and find a way to complete the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. They had tried it once before in 1948, with incomplete results. Back then, the Arab forces had managed to capture and ethnically cleanse the eastern half of Jerusalem, as well as seizing and annexing the West Bank and Gaza. But for 16 years, Israel had managed to frustrate their designs by stubbornly continuing to exist.
What the Arab governments wanted was a terrorist organization that could cross the border and carry out attacks inside Israel. And they wanted plausible deniability so that Israel and the UN couldn't hold them responsible for those attacks. And so cloaked in a lot of smoke and mirrors about "Palestinian Arab nationhood", the Palestine Liberation Organization was born. The PLO had three tasks, to harass Israel through terror, to cultivate a fifth column inside the country that would come into play in an invasion, and to make it seem as if the Arab world wasn't a bunch of genocidal maniacs, but wanted to destroy Israel in the name of "Palestinian rights".
The Arab League had never believed in an independent Palestinian state. Even while they were creating the PLO, Jordan had already annexed the West Bank. And Gaza was in Egyptian hands. The PLO's purpose was not to liberate these areas, or even to govern them. Its own charter made that abundantly clear.
Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
The PLO's own founding charter had already conceded that the West Bank was not part of Palestine, and instead recognized Jordan's annexation of the area. When the PLO talked about "liberating" Palestine, it only meant the parts of Israel that the Arab League members had not succeeded in seizing in 1948. When the PLO talked about liberating Palestine, up until 1967, it had nothing to do with the West Bank or Gaza, it simply meant destroying Israel.
It was not until 1967, when the latest Arab League attempt to "drive the Jews into the sea" failed, that the PLO began talking about their rights to Gaza and the West Bank. Previously they had staged terrorist attacks on Israel from bases in Gaza and the West Bank, under the sponsorship of Egypt and Jordan. After Israel reclaimed Gaza and the West Bank, and reversed the ethnic cleansing of Jews carried out in 1948, the PLO began focusing on the territories that their sponsors had lost in 1967, rather than just those they had lost in 1948.
From its founding, the PLO had always been a tool of larger movements in the Arab Muslim world. It began as a tool of Arab Socialism, and Pan-Arabism, the dream of a single Arab state encompassing the entire Arab world. An Arab socialist Caliphate. Even while agitating for the Palestinian cause, Shukairy went on promoting Pan-Arabism, in which there would be no independent Palestine. But then again an independent Palestine had never been the point.
By the 70's and 80's, the PLO had become a poisoned knife that cut the hands of its wielders. This is the common enough fate of those who create terrorist groups and imagine that they can control them. The PLO had managed to commit a number of terrorist atrocities in Israel, and Arafat, the 3rd successor to Shukairy, had become a household name. But it had achieved nothing except headlines.
In the seventies, the PLO attempted to seize control of part of Jordan, which after all had comprised the majority of the Palestine Mandate. But the PLO was brutally suppressed by the Jordanian regime of King Hussein, and was expelled from the country. It tried the same thing again in Beirut a few years later, trying to carve a "Second Palestine" out of Lebanon. It failed again, with horrifying results for the entire country.
By the late eighties, the PLO was done. Egypt had made a peace deal with Israel. Jordan had a tacit understanding with Israel under the table. Syria was the only Arab country bordering Israel that was still somewhat supportive of the PLO, but it had little use for the PLO as a terrorist organization inside Israel, because the PLO was Arab, and the Golan Heights which Syria hoped to conquer was Druze. Instead Syria was far more interested in using the PLO to spread chaos in Lebanon for its own purposes.
Had Israeli and American leaders not chosen to engage in act of breathtaking stupidity bordering on treason, the PLO would have faded away by now, much the same way that Habash's PFLP has. Its Arab Socialism was already dated. It had been created to pave the way for another invasion of Israel by the Arab Powers that after 1973 seemed to be permanently on hold. After Jordan and Lebanon, no one in the Arab world trusted Arafat anymore. And with the Soviet Union in decline, the PLO was swiftly running out of backers. In a better world, by 2004, Arafat's death would been a historical footnote putting an end to what had once been a serious terrorist threat.
But instead the PLO was rescued, given its own state and army, along with billions of dollars from the United States and Europe. A terrorist organization created in order to destroy Israel, that had been brutally expelled from two Arab countries, was given its own autonomous territory inside Israel. Words like madness and treason are almost too good and rational a description for this course of action. But corruption is the only one that properly suits.
In the late eighties, the PLO had become a weapon without a wielder. The PLO had gained its influence from its ability to cause chaos, but Israel's intervention in Lebanon had robbed it of even that. While the foreign press couldn't get enough photos of masked stone throwers onto their front pages, the reality is that the PLO's influence existed mainly in the media. The PLO had come full circle, to become just as irrelevant as it had been in 1964. But then the United States decided that it could become the PLO's wielder.
The Saudi infiltration of the American government meant there was still a small body of very influential people in the foreign policy establishment who kept repeating over and over again, that a "settlement" to the Israeli-Palestinian was vital to the stability of the region. The media helped keep this slogan in circulation with editorials and news stories. And successive administrations kept on pressuring Israel to reach a "settlement".
In 1991, the US pressured a conservative Israeli government into participating in the Madrid Conference. The negotiations failed to achieve anything, but for the first time Israel was forced to negotiate with terrorists. Israel's conservative government collapsed, and was replaced with a left wing coalition that conducted further illegal negotiations with the PLO. Those negotiations ratified under Clinton's benevolent smirk in the Rose Garden, brought the PLO back with a vengeance.
Given territory and troops, Arafat reverted back to his old formula. He would cause chaos through terrorism in order to gain more power. The plan worked like a charm. Arafat recognized that Arab Socialism was done, and he Islamized the Palestinian Authority. The educational system under the authority of the PA taught a primal Islamic hatred for Jews and other infidels. The cult of the suicide bomber provided religious authority to support PLO terrorism. And what had been a mild terrorist problem before Arafat was given a state inside Israel, became a horrifying nightmare afterward.
Via Fatah, the PLO was treated as a political party. Through Fatah's control over the Palestinian Authority, it was treated as a government. Terrorist attacks were attributed to various "extremist" or "militant" subgroups, whom naturally Arafat couldn't control. Even though Arafat's own militias were engaging in terrorism, the US pretended that it had nothing to do with Arafat or the PA or Fatah. Just more "extremists" and "militants" trying to disrupt the peace process. A process which involved Israel making concessions while under fire.
Clinton had taken ownership of the accords, and predictably refused to admit that anything was wrong, until the very end, when Arafat laughed at his dreams of a final status agreement. Only then did Clinton belatedly realize that Arafat was not interested in peace. But then why would Arafat have ever been interested in peace? The PLO was a terrorist organization. Its ideology called for the destruction of Israel. It gained nothing from peace, except the end of its legitimacy.
The new Bush Administration initially got it. It treated Arafat as a pariah, and avoided the constant drumbeat of criticism and demands for concessions from Israel that had been common under Clinton. Colin Powell as Secretary of State had little power and influence over Bush, and was in any case busy with the War on Terror. Once again the PLO seemed to have reached a dead end. Without American political influence protecting Arafat, Israel was able to respond to PLO terrorism by smashing into Arafat's compound and seizing important documents that showed Arafat's involvement in terrorism.
But in 2004 Arafat died. Colin Powell announced his resignation that same year. The old Bush Dream Team of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney lost their influence. And the new single most influential figure was the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Rice had been heavily influenced by James Baker, the architect of the Madrid disaster. She had been a board member of Chevron, a company that had been formerly known as the Arabian American Oil Company or ARAMCO. Like Baker, Rice was an eager tool of the Saudis, and the old foreign policy came back with a vengeance.
The PLO's prospects were revived again under Rice. The death of Arafat had brought forward a seemingly more suitable replacement. Mahmoud Abbas, a KGB trained operative, had become a useful compromise candidate. Abbas wore a suit, spoke softly and was generally considered ineffectual and useless by potential rivals who allowed him to hold the top spot as a figurehead. Bush Jr liked Abbas a good deal more than he had liked Arafat. Once again weapons and money began flowing to the PLO. And once again Israel was pressured to make more concessions to the terrorists.
There was one problem. The PLO had become a hollow shell. The Palestinian Authority government that the US and the EU had spent billions on, was nothing more than a facade. The real money was going into the bank accounts of top officials and used to buy the loyalty of street militias. But money wasn't enough anymore. And the tide was coming in.
Arafat had accurately foreseen that Islamic terrorism was the future, but he hadn't hopped far enough or fast enough on the bandwagon. Hamas had gotten there before him. And Hamas had its own sources of financing and weapons, primarily from Iran. Like the PLO, Hamas was a weapon, but not of Pan-Arabism, but of Pan-Islamism. Hamas had been carved out of the Muslim Brotherhood, its ideal was that of the Caliphate, its mission was Jihad or religious war. Like the PLO, Hamas did not take the idea of Palestinian independence seriously. But unlike the PLO, its allegiance to a Global Caliphate was part of a rising tide of Islamic terrorism.
Hamas was a weapon with a purpose. The PLO no longer had a purpose anymore. As Fatah, it bought loyalty with American dollars and European euros. As the PA, it denounced Israel and demanded negotiations which it had no interest in participating in. Its only real backers anymore were in Washington D.C. and in Brussels, which meant that it had become the foreign element in the region. When Rice pushed for open elections, Hamas won, and Fatah lost. When Rice pushed Abbas to suppress Hamas, the militias that had been happy to take American dollars, ran as fast as they could. Hamas took Gaza. And Abbas has been left sitting in Ramallah, while pretending to run a state.
And so now we come to the latest turn of the wheel. The PLO is reaching the very end of its relevance. There is no chance whatsoever of Fatah retaking Gaza. The only reason Hamas hasn't taken the West Bank, is because Israeli soldiers are in the way. But Israel's blockade of Gaza, has allowed Hamas to build ties with Western anti-war groups. Regionally, Egypt is still backing Fatah, but Erdogan's Turkey has thrown its weight behind Hamas. Syria and Iran are heavy Hamas supporters.
There are only so many ways this can play out. The likeliest of them is that some key Fatah leaders will broker a compromise with Hamas, and change sides. Iranian money will be used to buy the loyalty of key militias. There will be a few days of light fighting, followed by a few hundred executions. Maybe more. And then Hamas will rule in both Gaza and the West Bank. No amount of effort by American generals to train Palestinian Authority "police" will change that. And extracting concessions from Israel will only put more territory in the hands of Hamas.
But US foreign policy on Palestine has never been based on any kind of reality. In Washington D.C., they're certain that Salam Fayyad's reforms will fix everything. That all Abbas needs is a "modern" police force and the situation will reverse itself. Of course it will not. And any attempt at another election will quickly show why. Meanwhile the refusal to hold elections, exposes Abbas and Fayyad as a sham, a puppet regime without any legal authority.
So naturally in the face of all this, Abbas is declaring statehood. It's an insane last gamble by a leader with a vanishing base of authority and no real future. Instead of stepping back though, Abbas and Fayyad are playing out their final gamble at the UN.
Abbas doesn't represent anyone, except the militias and bureaucracy that he pays with US and EU money. His term has expired. He has no legal status for conducting any negotiations. But you won't read that in the press, which takes great care to blame Netanyahu for delaying negotiations, when in fact it was Abbas who repeatedly rejected direct talks, primarily because they may well end up being his death warrant.
The media and the Obama Administration remain wired into a purely "Blame Israel" mode. One story after another insists that the main obstacle to peace is a few private Israeli homes going up in Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. It is as if Hamas' control of Gaza doesn't exist for them. The elephant in the room armed with rockets and suicide bombers, controlling all of Gaza, might as well be a non-issue, as far as they're concerned. No one in the media asks when was the last time Abbas won an election. A minor issue that goes to the minor question of whether Abbas is even actually empowered to reach any binding agreements.
It might be 2011, but it might as well be 1996 or 2003 or any year in between. Except that the PLO's power is about done. The negotiations don't matter. Abbas will do his best to see that they fail, because it's the only way he can survive his own people. And he needs to have the blame for the failure fall on Israel, because it's the only way he can hang on to US and European support. As usual, nothing Israel can do will work, and whatever it does, it will get the blame. The media will go on chattering about settlements, as if that were the endgame here.
Statehood is a fiction that will move more money into the pockets of the Fatah elite, but it's also a double-edged sword. Fatah's only defense against a Hamas takeover is that it can extract territory through negotiations-- something Hamas cannot do because it refuses to negotiate for anything but temporary truces. A unilateral statehood declaration, if taken seriously, would also mean the end of negotiations. That's something Abbas can't afford because then his usefulness to Hamas is at an end.
Abbas needs Israel to keep from being overrun by Hamas, but he needs Hamas to keep his image as the moderate alternative to those crazy guys in Gaza. The balancing act has drawn billions in foreign aid, but infuriated everyone. Now Abbas is playing an even more dangerous game, going for broke to shake down Israel and the world into giving him some breathing room. It's a desperate move, but it may also work in the short term. In the long term though, the whole shebang is still doomed.
The Palestinian Authority is not a government, it's a terrorist organization in suits and ties. It has shown that it is not self-supporting and not capable of running anything besides a rocket launcher. It existed only as long as it was useful to someone.
The PLO began life because it was useful to the Syrians and Egyptians. When they no longer wanted it, it was still useful to the USSR. When the USSR no longer wanted it, it became useful to America. But now it's running out of sponsors.
The United States has been funding the Palestinian Authority since 1992 and it has gotten nothing for it, and while the foreign policy establishment insists on blaming Israel for that, there's only so long that game can go as well. The Bush Administration dumped Arafat and Abbas knows that sooner or later his turn will come. With no more options, no ability to reach a final status agreement and Western patrons whose foreign aid budgets will start tightening in the face of the bankruptcy, he is playing his only remaining card.
Either way the Palestinian myth is on the verge of flickering out. Hamas may talk about Palestinian rights, but it has even less interest in them than the PLO did. Hamas was spawned by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its goal is an Islamic state in Egypt and Gaza, and then all of Israel. It has replaced the Pan-Arabism of a Shukairy with a Pan-Islamism, that it meant to lead to a Global Caliphate. The leaders of Hamas are no less corrupt than Arafat's cronies were, but it will take longer for the average Israeli Arab to figure that out.
The Arab and Muslim world has made very effective use of Israeli Arabs as terrorists and bullies. From the Lebanese Civil War, to the streets of Iran, where Palestinian Arab terrorists are being used as snipers and gunmen to suppress protests against Ahmadinejad, they have always been weapons. Ideology has served to frame a mythical Palestinian identity for them in terms that make them all into mercenaries, terrorists and martyrs. Where Israel took in Jewish refugees, the Arab world deliberately perpetuated an Arab refugee problem in order to turn them into weapons. Once they were the weapons of Arab Socialism. Now they are the weapons of Islam.
Sultan Knish
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Myths About the Israeli-Arab Conflict
Is there such a thing as the “cycle of violence?”
In a recent one of our hasbarah (educating and clarifying) messages, we described how untruths and misinformation advanced by the Arabs have made many people, even well-intentioned ones, believe this propaganda. In that installment, we addressed the myth of “occupation” and its being the alleged cause of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Today, we look at another myth — repeated over and over again — that of the “cycle of violence.”
What are the facts?
The myth of the “cycle of violence.” Our government, the media and many people refer to and deplore the acts of violence raging between Israelis and Arabs. They believe that if that “cycle” could somehow be broken, peace and good will would prevail. But there is no such “cycle.” The Israelis, always exercising much restraint, are often forced to respond to such violence in order to protect their civilian population and their installations and infrastructure. Ask yourself how many Palestinian civilians have intentionally been killed by the Israelis? The answer is zero, nobody! And then ask yourself, how many Israeli civilians have been intentionally targeted and killed by the Arabs during that same period. The answer is: all of them! Any Palestinian civilian killed by Israel is an unintended victim. The Palestinians, on the other hand, target only Israeli civilians — shoppers in stores, teenagers in discotheques, celebrants at a bar mitzvah, a wedding, or a Passover Seder, or innocents riding in buses or other public transportation. The restraint of the Israelis in the face of never-ending provocation is almost unbelievable. What other country in the world would continue to suffer such sustained damage, such loss of life, without making every effort to eliminate its source? The sense of ethics that inspires the Israeli government and the Jewish people and, to be sure, also the pressure of public opinion, prevents Israel from unleashing its military potential and obliterating its tormentors once and for all. In the worst enemy attack on our country, the outrage of September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans died. Our country, justifiably, went into full attack mode. Regrettably, our enemies are elusive, and we cannot bring our military might to bear on them. We certainly would do so and do so mercilessly if we could. The over 1,000 civilian Israeli dead so far as a result of the current Palestinian “intifada,” correspond to about 65,000 American victims. Does anybody think that we would stand idly by if that were to happen to us? Of course not! What degree of forbearance does the world expect of Israel?
Evacuation of Gaza in vain. Bowing to bad advice and the pressure of public opinion, Israel evacuated Gaza — not a single Israeli soldier or civilian remains there. But instead of the expected peace, violence erupted almost immediately. Israel was and continues to be subject to almost daily rocket attacks. In a most serious incident, the Gazans dug a tunnel into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped one. An even more serious incident occurred on Israel’s northern border. In order to promote peace, Israel abandoned the southern Lebanon security strip, which it had maintained as a buffer against Hizbollah (the “party of God”). In a daring raid, Hizbollah invaded Israel, killed eight soldiers and kidnapped two. A violent war erupted as a result, during which Hizbollah launched thousands of sophisticated Iran-supplied rockets against Israel. It brought about enormous destruction and hundreds of dead in both Lebanon and Israel.
There is no “cycle of violence.” There is only the very measured response of the Israeli military to defend its civilian population and its vital installations against unending attacks by the Arabs. They are prepared to sacrifice their lives and that of their children and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve their goal of destroying Israel.
The Arab-Israel conflict has raged for almost 100 years. Israel has had to defend itself against attacks since the very day of its birth — and before. It has sustained casualties that, in proportion to its population, are far higher than that of any country in modern times, even those engaged in open warfare. The hatred of the Arabs against the Jews is bottomless. They will stop at nothing to inflict damage or, if possible, obliterate and “wipe Israel off the map.” The Palestinians live in abject misery, their economy is in shambles, and their youths, having not learned much more than the Koran, violence, and “martyrdom,” face a hopeless future. Had they accepted the offered partition of the country in 1948, or had they accepted the hand of friendship and peace that Israel has extended so many times since, they could now have had their own state, perhaps for as long as the Israelis — since 1948. They could have an advanced, peaceful and prosperous society, just as that of Israel, in partnership with and next to it. The concept of the “cycle of violence” would have never arisen.
Facts and Logic
In a recent one of our hasbarah (educating and clarifying) messages, we described how untruths and misinformation advanced by the Arabs have made many people, even well-intentioned ones, believe this propaganda. In that installment, we addressed the myth of “occupation” and its being the alleged cause of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Today, we look at another myth — repeated over and over again — that of the “cycle of violence.”
What are the facts?
The myth of the “cycle of violence.” Our government, the media and many people refer to and deplore the acts of violence raging between Israelis and Arabs. They believe that if that “cycle” could somehow be broken, peace and good will would prevail. But there is no such “cycle.” The Israelis, always exercising much restraint, are often forced to respond to such violence in order to protect their civilian population and their installations and infrastructure. Ask yourself how many Palestinian civilians have intentionally been killed by the Israelis? The answer is zero, nobody! And then ask yourself, how many Israeli civilians have been intentionally targeted and killed by the Arabs during that same period. The answer is: all of them! Any Palestinian civilian killed by Israel is an unintended victim. The Palestinians, on the other hand, target only Israeli civilians — shoppers in stores, teenagers in discotheques, celebrants at a bar mitzvah, a wedding, or a Passover Seder, or innocents riding in buses or other public transportation. The restraint of the Israelis in the face of never-ending provocation is almost unbelievable. What other country in the world would continue to suffer such sustained damage, such loss of life, without making every effort to eliminate its source? The sense of ethics that inspires the Israeli government and the Jewish people and, to be sure, also the pressure of public opinion, prevents Israel from unleashing its military potential and obliterating its tormentors once and for all. In the worst enemy attack on our country, the outrage of September 11, 2001, 3,000 Americans died. Our country, justifiably, went into full attack mode. Regrettably, our enemies are elusive, and we cannot bring our military might to bear on them. We certainly would do so and do so mercilessly if we could. The over 1,000 civilian Israeli dead so far as a result of the current Palestinian “intifada,” correspond to about 65,000 American victims. Does anybody think that we would stand idly by if that were to happen to us? Of course not! What degree of forbearance does the world expect of Israel?
Evacuation of Gaza in vain. Bowing to bad advice and the pressure of public opinion, Israel evacuated Gaza — not a single Israeli soldier or civilian remains there. But instead of the expected peace, violence erupted almost immediately. Israel was and continues to be subject to almost daily rocket attacks. In a most serious incident, the Gazans dug a tunnel into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped one. An even more serious incident occurred on Israel’s northern border. In order to promote peace, Israel abandoned the southern Lebanon security strip, which it had maintained as a buffer against Hizbollah (the “party of God”). In a daring raid, Hizbollah invaded Israel, killed eight soldiers and kidnapped two. A violent war erupted as a result, during which Hizbollah launched thousands of sophisticated Iran-supplied rockets against Israel. It brought about enormous destruction and hundreds of dead in both Lebanon and Israel.
There is no “cycle of violence.” There is only the very measured response of the Israeli military to defend its civilian population and its vital installations against unending attacks by the Arabs. They are prepared to sacrifice their lives and that of their children and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve their goal of destroying Israel.
The Arab-Israel conflict has raged for almost 100 years. Israel has had to defend itself against attacks since the very day of its birth — and before. It has sustained casualties that, in proportion to its population, are far higher than that of any country in modern times, even those engaged in open warfare. The hatred of the Arabs against the Jews is bottomless. They will stop at nothing to inflict damage or, if possible, obliterate and “wipe Israel off the map.” The Palestinians live in abject misery, their economy is in shambles, and their youths, having not learned much more than the Koran, violence, and “martyrdom,” face a hopeless future. Had they accepted the offered partition of the country in 1948, or had they accepted the hand of friendship and peace that Israel has extended so many times since, they could now have had their own state, perhaps for as long as the Israelis — since 1948. They could have an advanced, peaceful and prosperous society, just as that of Israel, in partnership with and next to it. The concept of the “cycle of violence” would have never arisen.
Facts and Logic
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path to War
The previous post in the series demonstrated how instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
It showed how the demand for the “Right of Return” of Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and unjustly shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. It also showed how the Arab demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
And it concluded that according to Arab leaders, the only “just resolution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would bring “peace” to the region would be the destruction of the Jewish State. Thus, for Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Unfortunately, reality proves otherwise.
Since 1967, the basis for Arab-Israeli negotiations has been UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the implementation of the “land for peace” formula – calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors.
For 20 years, the Palestinian leadership has managed to delude much of the Western world into thinking that its objective is to establish a Palestinian state and bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In reality, the objective of the Palestinians has been the destruction of the Jewish State; establishing a Palestinian state is merely a means to continue the conflict – not end it!
What evidence is there that this is indeed the case? “Moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself demonstrated that this is the case.
In his May 2011 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Palestinian President Abbas tried to justify his decision to bypass negotiations with Israel, and ask for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders from the United Nations this coming September.
Instead of negotiating with Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace, Abbas wants to coerce Israel to withdraw from territories in exchange for the continuation of conflict.
One of the steps that needs to be taken to achieve peace is reconciliation of grievances. But instead of trying to reconcile grievances with Israel, Abbas unjustly shifts the entire responsibility for the conflict to Israel. He writes:
“It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued… …Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
Here President Abbas rewrites history in an attempt to justify the fraudulent Arab demand for a “Right of Return.”
Unlike Abbas’ claims a Palestinian state was not a “promise unfulfilled” by the international community – it was a plan rejected by Palestinian and Arab leaders.
And unlike what Abbas implies, the ensuing conflict was not instigated by “Zionist forces” – it was the direct result of Arab attacks on Jewish communities. The violence that broke out throughout Palestine became more and more prevalent until it escalated into a civil war. The Zionist counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass departure of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.
Hours after Israel declared independence the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents, invaded Israel. The Arab League Secretary, Azzam Pasha, declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” In response, the Israeli army launched a series of offensives into areas allocated to the proposed Arab state.
During the 1948 war, between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. On the other hand, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation.
The Palestinian leader tries to portray the Arab side as victims of Zionist aggression. But in reality, Palestinian leaders and Arab states bear much of the responsibility for the 1948 war, and for the predicament of the Palestinian people.
Abbas’ unwillingness to acknowledge any Arab responsibility for the conflict indicates that he’s not interested in reconciling grievances with Israel, or ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abbas writes:
“Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel.”
What are the core issues of the conflict Palestinian are concerned about? The issues to be negotiated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are:
- Borders of future Palestinian state
- Israeli settlements in the West Bank
- Status of Jerusalem
- “Right of return” of Palestinian refugees
If a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is admitted to the UN by bypassing negotiations the first three issues become irrelevant, since they are no longer subject for negotiations. Thus, the only issue for “negotiation” would be the “Right of return” (which is synonymous with the “right” to destroy the Jewish State). Abbas continues:
“Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.”
In other words, according to “moderate” President Abbas, there can only be “a future of hope and dignity” for the Palestinian people if the Jewish State is destroyed.
Of course, there is one flaw in the Palestinian scheme to evade peace negotiations; the UN General Assembly can vote to admit a state as a full member only if it receives a recommendation to do so from the UN Security Council. The United States is expected to veto such recommendation in the UN Security Council since it undermines the negotiation process. In that case, a vote in the UN General Assembly would be meaningless.
Meaningless, but not entirely futile; the US veto would likely stir anti-American hostility in the Arab street, while the automatic majority Palestinians receive in the UN General Assembly will likely provoke Arab violence throughout the Palestinian territories and in Israel.
Is the Middle East on a Path to War?
But is there any way to interpret Abbas’ position that would give hope for the peace process? Or is the Middle East on a sure path to war?
In August 2009, the Fatah Conference – President Mahmoud Abbas’ faction – convened for the first time in 20 years. The congress adopted a resolution that all of Jerusalem be returned to the Palestinians and asserted the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes left before the 1948 war over Israel’s independence. In addition, a Fatah policy statement issued during the conference reserved the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” if future peace negotiations were not successful.”
In other words, Fatah reserves the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” (ie. terrorism) if negotiations with Israel are “not successful.” Yet, according to Fatah, one of the goals of these negotiations is the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel (ie. the destruction of the Jewish state). Since such negotiations are guaranteed to be “not successful” the sure result would be another outbreak of war.
Why then did the Palestinian leaders decide to abandon peace negotiations with Israel and go to the United Nations? Perhaps because they realized that to achieve an independent Palestinian state they would have to compromise on their goal to destroy the Jewish state.
Palestinians Prefer Destruction of Israel over Peace and End of Occupation
In a 2010 poll of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were asked the following questions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations:
Do you think that the Palestinians must renounce their right of home return, which Israel will never accept, in exchange for having an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace deal with Israel?
1. Yes, the Palestinians must do that: 14.0%
2. No, they shouldn’t do that even if the price would be the non-conclusion of a peace deal with Israel: 81.7%
3. I have no opinion: 4.3%
If the Palestinian leadership would waive the right of home return in exchange for a financial compensation, would you accept or refuse that?
1. I would accept that: 13.1%
2. I would refuse that: 81.8%
3. Don’t know: 5.1%
For years we’ve been told that the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Israeli occupation. We’ve been told that the reason for Palestinian violence and terrorism is that Palestinians are desperate, that they have nothing to lose.
Now it turns out that the vast majority of Palestinians – over 80 percent – prefer not to end the occupation, not to achieve national independence, and not to have peace, if the price they have to pay is the continued existence of the Jewish state.
By going to the United Nations Palestinian leaders are trying to avoid making that choice. They want to have a Palestinian state and continue the conflict with Israel, until the destruction of the Jewish state.
On the other hand, what would happen if Palestinian leaders return to negotiations? If they reach a peace deal with Israel that gives Palestinians almost the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, removes most Israeli settlements (except for the large settlement blocks that take about 1.5% of the West Bank), and generously compensates Palestinian refugees?
First, that already happened – in the 2000 Camp David Summit! The result was that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the Israeli offer and did not propose any counter-offer. Two months later the Second Intifada broke out and claimed the lives of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.
Second, any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel must be approved by a Palestinian referendum. The vast majority of Palestinians (over 80%) will reject any deal that does not include the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel – something Israel will never agree to.
Thus, for both Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Both Palestinian leaders and the vast majority of the Palestinian public prefer to continue the conflict and to destroy the Jewish state, over achieving an end to the occupation, national independence, and peace.
Given the reality of Arab and Palestinian attitude toward Israel, the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war.
How then can the next outbreak of violence be prevented? Only if Arab and Palestinian leaders genuinely decide to end their hostility toward Israel, recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, and address the legitimate grievances of both sides in the conflict.
Until then, it seems that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s famous quote from 1957 is as true now as it was then:
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
The next post in the series will explain why there is such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and if it is justified.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
It showed how the demand for the “Right of Return” of Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and unjustly shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. It also showed how the Arab demand for a “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
And it concluded that according to Arab leaders, the only “just resolution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would bring “peace” to the region would be the destruction of the Jewish State. Thus, for Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Unfortunately, reality proves otherwise.
Since 1967, the basis for Arab-Israeli negotiations has been UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the implementation of the “land for peace” formula – calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors.
For 20 years, the Palestinian leadership has managed to delude much of the Western world into thinking that its objective is to establish a Palestinian state and bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In reality, the objective of the Palestinians has been the destruction of the Jewish State; establishing a Palestinian state is merely a means to continue the conflict – not end it!
What evidence is there that this is indeed the case? “Moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself demonstrated that this is the case.
In his May 2011 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Palestinian President Abbas tried to justify his decision to bypass negotiations with Israel, and ask for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders from the United Nations this coming September.
Instead of negotiating with Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace, Abbas wants to coerce Israel to withdraw from territories in exchange for the continuation of conflict.
One of the steps that needs to be taken to achieve peace is reconciliation of grievances. But instead of trying to reconcile grievances with Israel, Abbas unjustly shifts the entire responsibility for the conflict to Israel. He writes:
“It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued… …Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
Here President Abbas rewrites history in an attempt to justify the fraudulent Arab demand for a “Right of Return.”
Unlike Abbas’ claims a Palestinian state was not a “promise unfulfilled” by the international community – it was a plan rejected by Palestinian and Arab leaders.
And unlike what Abbas implies, the ensuing conflict was not instigated by “Zionist forces” – it was the direct result of Arab attacks on Jewish communities. The violence that broke out throughout Palestine became more and more prevalent until it escalated into a civil war. The Zionist counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass departure of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.
Hours after Israel declared independence the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents, invaded Israel. The Arab League Secretary, Azzam Pasha, declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” In response, the Israeli army launched a series of offensives into areas allocated to the proposed Arab state.
During the 1948 war, between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. On the other hand, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation.
The Palestinian leader tries to portray the Arab side as victims of Zionist aggression. But in reality, Palestinian leaders and Arab states bear much of the responsibility for the 1948 war, and for the predicament of the Palestinian people.
Abbas’ unwillingness to acknowledge any Arab responsibility for the conflict indicates that he’s not interested in reconciling grievances with Israel, or ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abbas writes:
“Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel.”
What are the core issues of the conflict Palestinian are concerned about? The issues to be negotiated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are:
- Borders of future Palestinian state
- Israeli settlements in the West Bank
- Status of Jerusalem
- “Right of return” of Palestinian refugees
If a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is admitted to the UN by bypassing negotiations the first three issues become irrelevant, since they are no longer subject for negotiations. Thus, the only issue for “negotiation” would be the “Right of return” (which is synonymous with the “right” to destroy the Jewish State). Abbas continues:
“Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.”
In other words, according to “moderate” President Abbas, there can only be “a future of hope and dignity” for the Palestinian people if the Jewish State is destroyed.
Of course, there is one flaw in the Palestinian scheme to evade peace negotiations; the UN General Assembly can vote to admit a state as a full member only if it receives a recommendation to do so from the UN Security Council. The United States is expected to veto such recommendation in the UN Security Council since it undermines the negotiation process. In that case, a vote in the UN General Assembly would be meaningless.
Meaningless, but not entirely futile; the US veto would likely stir anti-American hostility in the Arab street, while the automatic majority Palestinians receive in the UN General Assembly will likely provoke Arab violence throughout the Palestinian territories and in Israel.
Is the Middle East on a Path to War?
But is there any way to interpret Abbas’ position that would give hope for the peace process? Or is the Middle East on a sure path to war?
In August 2009, the Fatah Conference – President Mahmoud Abbas’ faction – convened for the first time in 20 years. The congress adopted a resolution that all of Jerusalem be returned to the Palestinians and asserted the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes left before the 1948 war over Israel’s independence. In addition, a Fatah policy statement issued during the conference reserved the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” if future peace negotiations were not successful.”
In other words, Fatah reserves the right to exercise “resistance” in “all its forms” (ie. terrorism) if negotiations with Israel are “not successful.” Yet, according to Fatah, one of the goals of these negotiations is the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel (ie. the destruction of the Jewish state). Since such negotiations are guaranteed to be “not successful” the sure result would be another outbreak of war.
Why then did the Palestinian leaders decide to abandon peace negotiations with Israel and go to the United Nations? Perhaps because they realized that to achieve an independent Palestinian state they would have to compromise on their goal to destroy the Jewish state.
Palestinians Prefer Destruction of Israel over Peace and End of Occupation
In a 2010 poll of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were asked the following questions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations:
Do you think that the Palestinians must renounce their right of home return, which Israel will never accept, in exchange for having an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace deal with Israel?
1. Yes, the Palestinians must do that: 14.0%
2. No, they shouldn’t do that even if the price would be the non-conclusion of a peace deal with Israel: 81.7%
3. I have no opinion: 4.3%
If the Palestinian leadership would waive the right of home return in exchange for a financial compensation, would you accept or refuse that?
1. I would accept that: 13.1%
2. I would refuse that: 81.8%
3. Don’t know: 5.1%
For years we’ve been told that the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Israeli occupation. We’ve been told that the reason for Palestinian violence and terrorism is that Palestinians are desperate, that they have nothing to lose.
Now it turns out that the vast majority of Palestinians – over 80 percent – prefer not to end the occupation, not to achieve national independence, and not to have peace, if the price they have to pay is the continued existence of the Jewish state.
By going to the United Nations Palestinian leaders are trying to avoid making that choice. They want to have a Palestinian state and continue the conflict with Israel, until the destruction of the Jewish state.
On the other hand, what would happen if Palestinian leaders return to negotiations? If they reach a peace deal with Israel that gives Palestinians almost the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, removes most Israeli settlements (except for the large settlement blocks that take about 1.5% of the West Bank), and generously compensates Palestinian refugees?
First, that already happened – in the 2000 Camp David Summit! The result was that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the Israeli offer and did not propose any counter-offer. Two months later the Second Intifada broke out and claimed the lives of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.
Second, any peace deal Palestinian leaders sign with Israel must be approved by a Palestinian referendum. The vast majority of Palestinians (over 80%) will reject any deal that does not include the “right of return” of millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel – something Israel will never agree to.
Thus, for both Palestinian and Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Both Palestinian leaders and the vast majority of the Palestinian public prefer to continue the conflict and to destroy the Jewish state, over achieving an end to the occupation, national independence, and peace.
Given the reality of Arab and Palestinian attitude toward Israel, the Middle East is unfortunately on a path to another war.
How then can the next outbreak of violence be prevented? Only if Arab and Palestinian leaders genuinely decide to end their hostility toward Israel, recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, and address the legitimate grievances of both sides in the conflict.
Until then, it seems that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s famous quote from 1957 is as true now as it was then:
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
The next post in the series will explain why there is such deep Arab hatred toward the Jewish state, and if it is justified.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part I: Why Peace is Impossible
In March 2002, then-Crown Prince, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed the “Arab Peace Initiative” in the Arab League Beirut Summit. According to Arab leaders this initiative consisted of a comprehensive proposal to end the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab League members unanimously endorsed the peace initiative on March 27.
According to the Arab Peace Initiative Israel will:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;
(b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
(c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region;
(b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace
To most unsuspecting Westerners, the Arab Peace Initiative may seem like a clear sign that Arab states are truly dedicated to peace. With such an attractive and generous offer – an end to the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, and peace with all Arab states – what does Israel have to lose?
Surely, withdrawing from all occupied territories is not such a big problem for Israel if it gets peace with all Arab countries in return; Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula – an area 3 times the size of Israel – in return for peace with Egypt.
Accepting an independent Palestinian state is also not a big issue of concern; Israeli PMs over the past two decades have agreed that a Palestinian state will be a reality, and negotiated with Palestinian leaders to that end.
But what about the Palestinian refugee issue? How can Israel possibly reject a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees?
Well, there’s only one little problem here – what is hidden behind the innocent sounding words of the Arab proposal is actually something quite ominous to Israel. While part (b) of the released proposal states:
Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
When we look at the full wording of the Arab Peace Initiative, we find the following:
“To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194,” and “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”
What exactly does “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation” mean?
The Arab states used more explicit language on this point in a Final Statement that accompanied their initiative. They rejected any solution that involves “resettling of the Palestinians outside of their homes.”
This does not just mean that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries. It also means that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in the future Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza).
The only solution Arab states would be willing to accept – and the only solution they view as “just” – to the Palestinian refugee problem is the resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
So while the Arab Initiative itself says that the solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees should be “agreed upon” – presumably in negotiations between Israel and Arab states, the Arab Final Statement leaves no room for negotiations. What this really means is that Israel should agree to the Arab proposal to resettle Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Can Israel agree to such proposal?
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Resettling millions of refugees in Israel – a country of 7.7 million inhabitants (including 1.25 million Israeli Arabs) – would inevitably bring the destruction of the Jewish State.
In other words, through the Arab “Peace” Initiative, Arab states declare that they are willing to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and sign a peace agreement with Israel… once Israel ceases to exist.
Thus, according to the Arab perspective the only way to “peacefully” resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is through the destruction of the Jewish State.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian Refugees
Certainly, Israel would never agree to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees. But is the Arab demand for the “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel legitimate? Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
For Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace? That will be the topic of the next post in the series The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
According to the Arab Peace Initiative Israel will:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;
(b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
(c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region;
(b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace
To most unsuspecting Westerners, the Arab Peace Initiative may seem like a clear sign that Arab states are truly dedicated to peace. With such an attractive and generous offer – an end to the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, and peace with all Arab states – what does Israel have to lose?
Surely, withdrawing from all occupied territories is not such a big problem for Israel if it gets peace with all Arab countries in return; Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula – an area 3 times the size of Israel – in return for peace with Egypt.
Accepting an independent Palestinian state is also not a big issue of concern; Israeli PMs over the past two decades have agreed that a Palestinian state will be a reality, and negotiated with Palestinian leaders to that end.
But what about the Palestinian refugee issue? How can Israel possibly reject a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees?
Well, there’s only one little problem here – what is hidden behind the innocent sounding words of the Arab proposal is actually something quite ominous to Israel. While part (b) of the released proposal states:
Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
When we look at the full wording of the Arab Peace Initiative, we find the following:
“To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194,” and “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.”
What exactly does “the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation” mean?
The Arab states used more explicit language on this point in a Final Statement that accompanied their initiative. They rejected any solution that involves “resettling of the Palestinians outside of their homes.”
This does not just mean that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries. It also means that Arab states reject the settlement of Palestinian refugees in the future Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza).
The only solution Arab states would be willing to accept – and the only solution they view as “just” – to the Palestinian refugee problem is the resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
So while the Arab Initiative itself says that the solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees should be “agreed upon” – presumably in negotiations between Israel and Arab states, the Arab Final Statement leaves no room for negotiations. What this really means is that Israel should agree to the Arab proposal to resettle Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Can Israel agree to such proposal?
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) estimates there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Resettling millions of refugees in Israel – a country of 7.7 million inhabitants (including 1.25 million Israeli Arabs) – would inevitably bring the destruction of the Jewish State.
In other words, through the Arab “Peace” Initiative, Arab states declare that they are willing to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and sign a peace agreement with Israel… once Israel ceases to exist.
Thus, according to the Arab perspective the only way to “peacefully” resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is through the destruction of the Jewish State.
“Right of Return” for Palestinian Refugees
Certainly, Israel would never agree to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees. But is the Arab demand for the “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel legitimate? Let us consider the question of Palestinian refugees from a historic perspective:
During the 1948 War – a war which began with Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Plan, and the subsequent invasion of Arab armies into Israel – between 650,000 and 730,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the area that became Israel, and became refugees. At the same time, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine. In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. By the end of the war territory under Israeli control encompassed approximately three-quarters of Mandate Palestine. Today, over 1.25 million Arabs are citizens of Israel.
From 1948 to 1970 between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries. Today, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in Arab countries. It is estimated that Jewish-owned real-estate left behind or confiscated in Arab countries covers a total of about 100,000 square kilometers – more than four times the size of the state of Israel. Additional 200,000 Jews from [non-Arab] Muslim countries left their homes due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility since 1948. Today over 60% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of displaced Jews from Arab countries.
Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed by Israel and became equal citizens. Israel does not demand a “right of return” for Jews into Arab countries, nor does it demand compensation for confiscated Jewish land and property from Arab countries.
On the other hand, Palestinian refugees were not absorbed by Arab countries. Instead, for over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been confined to impoverished refugee camps by Arab states; denied the opportunity for a meaningful life, and cynically exploited by Arab states as a political weapon against Israel. For over 60 years Palestinian refugees have been told that only Israel is responsible for their suffering, and that one day they will return to their villages and homes.
The demand for “Right of Return” for Palestinian refugees into Israel is an Arab attempt to distort history, and shift the entire responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict to Israel. There is nothing just or equitable about this demand.
Thus, the “Right of Return” is synonymous with the destruction of the Jewish State.
Instead of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, Arab leaders have been focused on one goal: the destruction of the Jewish State.
For Arab leaders “peace” negotiations with Israel are merely the continuation of war by other means.
Certainly, Arab leaders in distant capitals – untroubled by the daily hardships of Palestinians under occupation – may adopt extreme views for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ie. the destruction of Israel). But what about Palestinian leaders?
Palestinian leaders are more attuned with the reality on the ground. Shouldn’t they be more willing to reconcile their differences with Israel for the sake of national independence and peace? Can there still be hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace? That will be the topic of the next post in the series The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Reading Continued Below:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part II: Why the Middle East is on a Path of War?
The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Part III: The Core of the Conflict
Geo Politics
Monday, August 1, 2011
Arabs Rewriting History
Arab reaction from 1949 shows Israel isn’t exclusively responsible for refugee problem.
By Alexander Joffe, Asaf Romirowsky
The late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said called Palestinians “the victims of the victims.” As the September deadline for the Palestinian “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” approaches, and the certain endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly, it is worth asking again who originally victimized the Palestinians. Today, of course, the unanimous consensus among Palestinians, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, is that it was Israel that, in 1948, attacked and expelled Palestinians. But who did Palestinians blame for their fate in 1949?
The two largest Palestinian communities in the US are located in Dearborn Michigan and Jacksonville Florida. On December 15th, 1949 the Michigan Arab newspaper As Sabah (literally the Morning Tribune) published an editorial on the question of the Palestine Arab refugees:
“What is the crime of the refugees in the eyes of the lords of Arabia who stand by and watch the misery of the refugees, and who suck the blood of the poor and needy-without shame before God and the world? Yes the poor refugees committed the crime of listening to those deceivers, they believed the liars, and went to the extreme foolishness of leaving their homes, counting on their deceitful leaders to bring them back! And because of what is happening to the Palestine refugees, Arab public opinion is changing little by little to support the Jews in Israel where not a single Arab dies from starvation and cold! And if there should be another war, it should be against the Arab leaders, the princes and kings who brought this catastrophe upon the poor people of Palestine.”
The editorial’s analysis regarding Arab public opinion favoring Israel was incorrect, to say the least. But the claim that Palestinians fled their homes in response to Arab leaders has been controversial since the events occurred. The Palestinians of Michigan in 1949 thought this was the case.
In October 1949, Palestinian intellectual Musa Alami wrote: “What concerned (the Arab states) most and guided their policy was not to win the war and save Palestine from the enemy, but what would happen after the struggle, who would be predominant in Palestine, or annex it themselves.”
British testimonials
But in addition to the usurpation of the Palestinian cause, which upset As Sabah’s editorialists, there was another dimension. British officials on the scene at the time, hardly pro-Zionist, were convinced that Palestinian leaders were steadily abandoning their people. In December 1947 the High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham reported that “panic of (the) middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country." He added later in April 1948, “In all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing.”
In June 1949 Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo reported that the refugees “express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. “We know who our enemies are,” they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.”
Israeli officials maintained from the beginning that a majority of the Palestinians were encouraged to flee by their own leaders and those of Arab states, who then abandoned them before or in the midst of battle. This has long been dismissed by Palestinians and their supporters as Zionist propaganda. But British officials on the scene and opposed to Israel, and Palestinians in America, would not have simply parroted their enemy’s assessment.
The implications of this long-forgotten editorial, and all the other statements, are in the first instance that Israel does not bear full and exclusive responsibility for the Palestinian refugee situation – the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves do too. This also puts their upcoming “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” into a wholly different light.
In effect, Palestinian leaders have asked the United Nations for yet another opportunity to turn the clock back to give them another chance at achieving statehood that could have been theirs in 1948 or even in 1938. Meanwhile, some Palestinian officials have begun floating the idea of returning to the 1947 partition plan, the same plan that their predecessors rejected summarily in 1947. When do these chances run out? In the process, as their predecessors did in 1949, they blame everyone but themselves for not having achieved their goals to date.
A culture without a sense of responsibility for its own decisions, that blames others for its own decisions and at the same time perpetually demands that its maintenance is someone else’s responsibility, is not likely to create a stable, functioning nation-state. Any new Palestinian state would be an instant pauper, utterly dependent on aid, primarily from the American taxpayer.
Little wonder then that at least some Palestinian leaders are trying to back off from the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The “deceivers” that Palestinian Americans of 1949 railed against are ultimately their own leaders and other Arab states. Until new leaders can be found for both, and a new culture of responsibility and self-reliance installed, little progress will be made.
Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky are the authors of "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography,” published in the journal Middle Eastern Studies
Ynet News
By Alexander Joffe, Asaf Romirowsky
The late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said called Palestinians “the victims of the victims.” As the September deadline for the Palestinian “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” approaches, and the certain endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly, it is worth asking again who originally victimized the Palestinians. Today, of course, the unanimous consensus among Palestinians, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, is that it was Israel that, in 1948, attacked and expelled Palestinians. But who did Palestinians blame for their fate in 1949?
The two largest Palestinian communities in the US are located in Dearborn Michigan and Jacksonville Florida. On December 15th, 1949 the Michigan Arab newspaper As Sabah (literally the Morning Tribune) published an editorial on the question of the Palestine Arab refugees:
“What is the crime of the refugees in the eyes of the lords of Arabia who stand by and watch the misery of the refugees, and who suck the blood of the poor and needy-without shame before God and the world? Yes the poor refugees committed the crime of listening to those deceivers, they believed the liars, and went to the extreme foolishness of leaving their homes, counting on their deceitful leaders to bring them back! And because of what is happening to the Palestine refugees, Arab public opinion is changing little by little to support the Jews in Israel where not a single Arab dies from starvation and cold! And if there should be another war, it should be against the Arab leaders, the princes and kings who brought this catastrophe upon the poor people of Palestine.”
The editorial’s analysis regarding Arab public opinion favoring Israel was incorrect, to say the least. But the claim that Palestinians fled their homes in response to Arab leaders has been controversial since the events occurred. The Palestinians of Michigan in 1949 thought this was the case.
In October 1949, Palestinian intellectual Musa Alami wrote: “What concerned (the Arab states) most and guided their policy was not to win the war and save Palestine from the enemy, but what would happen after the struggle, who would be predominant in Palestine, or annex it themselves.”
British testimonials
But in addition to the usurpation of the Palestinian cause, which upset As Sabah’s editorialists, there was another dimension. British officials on the scene at the time, hardly pro-Zionist, were convinced that Palestinian leaders were steadily abandoning their people. In December 1947 the High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham reported that “panic of (the) middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country." He added later in April 1948, “In all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing.”
In June 1949 Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo reported that the refugees “express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. “We know who our enemies are,” they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.”
Israeli officials maintained from the beginning that a majority of the Palestinians were encouraged to flee by their own leaders and those of Arab states, who then abandoned them before or in the midst of battle. This has long been dismissed by Palestinians and their supporters as Zionist propaganda. But British officials on the scene and opposed to Israel, and Palestinians in America, would not have simply parroted their enemy’s assessment.
The implications of this long-forgotten editorial, and all the other statements, are in the first instance that Israel does not bear full and exclusive responsibility for the Palestinian refugee situation – the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves do too. This also puts their upcoming “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” into a wholly different light.
In effect, Palestinian leaders have asked the United Nations for yet another opportunity to turn the clock back to give them another chance at achieving statehood that could have been theirs in 1948 or even in 1938. Meanwhile, some Palestinian officials have begun floating the idea of returning to the 1947 partition plan, the same plan that their predecessors rejected summarily in 1947. When do these chances run out? In the process, as their predecessors did in 1949, they blame everyone but themselves for not having achieved their goals to date.
A culture without a sense of responsibility for its own decisions, that blames others for its own decisions and at the same time perpetually demands that its maintenance is someone else’s responsibility, is not likely to create a stable, functioning nation-state. Any new Palestinian state would be an instant pauper, utterly dependent on aid, primarily from the American taxpayer.
Little wonder then that at least some Palestinian leaders are trying to back off from the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The “deceivers” that Palestinian Americans of 1949 railed against are ultimately their own leaders and other Arab states. Until new leaders can be found for both, and a new culture of responsibility and self-reliance installed, little progress will be made.
Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky are the authors of "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography,” published in the journal Middle Eastern Studies
Ynet News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You might also like:
