From the web site of US Congressman Eliot Engel, 19 May 2011:
Washington, DC -- Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY-17), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued the following statement in response to President Barack Obama’s speech on Middle East and North Africa policy.
“The President today sent strong and positive signals that the United States would stand on the side of freedom in the Arab world. He also was clear with the worst abusers, including Syria, that the United States would impose increasing pressure until they respect the rights of their people. On both points, President Obama has my full support.
“I was very pleased with one clear point of the President’s speech. He unambiguously stated that Israel is a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.
“However, the speech also omitted or glossed over several themes.
“First, I am unclear as to why the President did not recount the three conditions of the Quartet, comprised of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia, for dealing with Hamas. (1) Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist, (2) Hamas must renounce terrorism, and (3) Hamas must commit to all of the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians. Those conditions, laid down in 2006, establish the foundation of our policy toward Hamas and must not be disregarded or glossed over. Further, we cannot expect Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority which has Hamas, a terrorist organization, as a working partner until Hamas accepts these conditions.
“Second, the 1967 armistice lines were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them. Moreover, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which forms the basis of any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians, does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines in exchange for peace. The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel’s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point.
“The reason that there has been no progress toward a peace agreement is that the Palestinians have refused to sit down with Israel and have used every excuse under the sun to refuse to negotiate. President Abbas, with all his talk of moderation, has been anything but. It is time to tell the Palestinians that the only way to statehood is through negotiations at the bargaining table, not through unilateral actions.
“The President still has the opportunity to elaborate on these points when he speaks on Sunday about the Israeli – Palestinian dispute, and I, for one, will listen carefully to what he has to say.”
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Netanyahu is one of 12 Mid East leaders saying no to Obama
From a DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 20, 2011:
By rejecting US President Barack Obama's proposal for Israel and its troops to pull back from the West Bank to behind the indefensible 1967 lines, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lands in the company of eleven Middle East and North African rulers who spurned Washington's Middle East policy in the six months of the unfolding Arab uprising. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was the only one to keep faith with Obama and he was pushed out for his pains.
Barack Obama's presentation of his Middle East vision Thursday, May 19 had three immediate results:
1. Every surviving regional leader was confirmed in his determination to keep his distance from US administration policies;
2. Another nail was driven in the coffin of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
3. The fuel that was poured on regional tensions increased the prospects of an Israel-Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab war this year.
No Israeli politician can afford to back away from the demand that Israel retain a security presence and defensible borders along its eastern boundary and, even more so, on the West Bank in any future peace accord. This fundamental principle was not denied by opposition leaders Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz even as they poured boiling oil on the prime minister's head for getting into an argument with the US president.
But this repudiation is exactly what Obama wants.
The notion that Israel can achieve security through peace talks is a pipe dream because no Palestinian negotiator will think of seeking fewer concessions from Israel than the ones laid down by the US president. He will simply use the speech as a starting-point for the biggest squeeze Israel has ever faced.
Obama saw this maxim played out in his first two years in office: First, he said Netanyahu must freeze West Bank settlement construction. The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, when he first heard about it, found the demand absurd – it had never been put to any former prime minister either by Washington or the Palestinians. But after Obama led the way, Abbas could demand no less. So he shrugged and turned this demand into a useful pretext in his maneuvers for wriggling out of talking to Israel.
The Israeli Prime Minister after practically begging the Palestinians to sit down and talk for two years has now put his foot down against the new Obama proposals. If he stands by this refusal, he leaves the vast region stretching across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and North Africa without a single political, military or royal ruler willing to accept Obama's new policy principles. The only possible exception may be Turkish Prime Minster Tayyip Erdogan.
The regional anti-Obama opposition falls into two camps:
The largest consists of eight former American allies, some of them ex-strategic partners, which is headed by the Saudi royal family.
A leading Saudi spokesman Nawaf Obaid brought the Riyadh-Washington rupture out in the open for the first time on May 16 in the form of a Washington Post op-ed.
"In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong US partner," he wrote. "In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. The oil for security formula is history… The special relationship may never be the same…”
Saudi King Abdullah has already swept the half a dozen GCC (Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf) behind the separate security and strategic policies he is pursuing independently of the US and often diametrically opposed to Obama's course. He has invited Jordan, Morocco and Yemen to join the group.
The suggestion put by Jordanian monarch Abdullah II to Obama this week that the US transfer its sponsorship of the Israel-Palestinian issue to the GCC underscored the rising power of the new Gulf grouping and was firmly rejected.
The second camp consists of four anti-US Arab rulers, Syria's Bashar Assad, the Libyan Muammar Qaddaf, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, who have resorted to armed violence to suppress the pro-democracy movements sponsored by President Obama.
Saudi Arabia is propping the Bahraini and Yemen regimes up with cash, arms, military assistance and intelligence. All four are determined to do whatever it takes to avoid the fate that befell Hosni Mubarak.
The only leaders who until Thursday, May 19, stood out against joining both those camps were the military council ruling Egypt and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
The generals in Cairo nod obediently when faced with demands from Washington and do nothing.
The Palestinian leader called the Obama speech "disappointing" in that no timeline or diplomatic mechanisms were offered. The US President poured scorn on Abbas' plan to seek unilateral UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in September, hoping to shut the door on yet another ploy for avoiding peace talks with Israel. The Palestinian leader may well defy him.
Abbas, even after losing his key patron Mubarak, is still juggling several balls in the hope of pushing Israel into a corner. Netanyahu, for his part, having stayed passive in the face of the new currents blowing in from Washington and the Arab revolt, has reached crunch time with the US president without strong cards.
A falling-out between the White House and the Israeli prime minister will also box Abbas into a choice of which anti-Obama Arab camp to jump into – the group led by Saudi Arabia or the Syrian group which also includes Hamas with whom he has just signed a unity pact.
In the long run, that pact may have saddled him with undesirable options.
Binyamin Netanyahu locks horns with Barack Obama
By rejecting US President Barack Obama's proposal for Israel and its troops to pull back from the West Bank to behind the indefensible 1967 lines, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lands in the company of eleven Middle East and North African rulers who spurned Washington's Middle East policy in the six months of the unfolding Arab uprising. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was the only one to keep faith with Obama and he was pushed out for his pains.
Barack Obama's presentation of his Middle East vision Thursday, May 19 had three immediate results:
1. Every surviving regional leader was confirmed in his determination to keep his distance from US administration policies;
2. Another nail was driven in the coffin of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
3. The fuel that was poured on regional tensions increased the prospects of an Israel-Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab war this year.
No Israeli politician can afford to back away from the demand that Israel retain a security presence and defensible borders along its eastern boundary and, even more so, on the West Bank in any future peace accord. This fundamental principle was not denied by opposition leaders Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz even as they poured boiling oil on the prime minister's head for getting into an argument with the US president.
But this repudiation is exactly what Obama wants.
The notion that Israel can achieve security through peace talks is a pipe dream because no Palestinian negotiator will think of seeking fewer concessions from Israel than the ones laid down by the US president. He will simply use the speech as a starting-point for the biggest squeeze Israel has ever faced.
Obama saw this maxim played out in his first two years in office: First, he said Netanyahu must freeze West Bank settlement construction. The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, when he first heard about it, found the demand absurd – it had never been put to any former prime minister either by Washington or the Palestinians. But after Obama led the way, Abbas could demand no less. So he shrugged and turned this demand into a useful pretext in his maneuvers for wriggling out of talking to Israel.
The Israeli Prime Minister after practically begging the Palestinians to sit down and talk for two years has now put his foot down against the new Obama proposals. If he stands by this refusal, he leaves the vast region stretching across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and North Africa without a single political, military or royal ruler willing to accept Obama's new policy principles. The only possible exception may be Turkish Prime Minster Tayyip Erdogan.
The regional anti-Obama opposition falls into two camps:
The largest consists of eight former American allies, some of them ex-strategic partners, which is headed by the Saudi royal family.
A leading Saudi spokesman Nawaf Obaid brought the Riyadh-Washington rupture out in the open for the first time on May 16 in the form of a Washington Post op-ed.
"In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong US partner," he wrote. "In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. The oil for security formula is history… The special relationship may never be the same…”
Saudi King Abdullah has already swept the half a dozen GCC (Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf) behind the separate security and strategic policies he is pursuing independently of the US and often diametrically opposed to Obama's course. He has invited Jordan, Morocco and Yemen to join the group.
The suggestion put by Jordanian monarch Abdullah II to Obama this week that the US transfer its sponsorship of the Israel-Palestinian issue to the GCC underscored the rising power of the new Gulf grouping and was firmly rejected.
The second camp consists of four anti-US Arab rulers, Syria's Bashar Assad, the Libyan Muammar Qaddaf, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, who have resorted to armed violence to suppress the pro-democracy movements sponsored by President Obama.
Saudi Arabia is propping the Bahraini and Yemen regimes up with cash, arms, military assistance and intelligence. All four are determined to do whatever it takes to avoid the fate that befell Hosni Mubarak.
The only leaders who until Thursday, May 19, stood out against joining both those camps were the military council ruling Egypt and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
The generals in Cairo nod obediently when faced with demands from Washington and do nothing.
The Palestinian leader called the Obama speech "disappointing" in that no timeline or diplomatic mechanisms were offered. The US President poured scorn on Abbas' plan to seek unilateral UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in September, hoping to shut the door on yet another ploy for avoiding peace talks with Israel. The Palestinian leader may well defy him.
Abbas, even after losing his key patron Mubarak, is still juggling several balls in the hope of pushing Israel into a corner. Netanyahu, for his part, having stayed passive in the face of the new currents blowing in from Washington and the Arab revolt, has reached crunch time with the US president without strong cards.
A falling-out between the White House and the Israeli prime minister will also box Abbas into a choice of which anti-Obama Arab camp to jump into – the group led by Saudi Arabia or the Syrian group which also includes Hamas with whom he has just signed a unity pact.
In the long run, that pact may have saddled him with undesirable options.
Obama slammed
Senator Joe Lieberman slammed Obama's ham-fisted "peacemaking" yesterday:
“Unfortunately, President Obama’s important and constructive speech embracing and supporting the peaceful, democratic revolutions in the Arab world was also undermined by an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back.
“While the President made some strong statements about the “unshakeable” support for Israel’s security and rightly criticized the Palestinian pursuit of a symbolic statehood declaration at the UN in September, his unilateral call for negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps -- the first time any president has adopted this position -- was profoundly ill-advised. As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.
“In particular, the President’s remarks have revived and exacerbated fears in Israel about the commitment and understanding of this Administration with regard to their unique security situation. The fact is, while the exciting and hopeful new reality in the Arab world is the Arab spring, the newest reality in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not hopeful. It is the threatening new unity government between the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a group which the U.S. government has long designated as terrorist because it is committed to violence and the destruction of Israel.
“In the days ahead, I hope President Obama will make clear Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a Fatah-Hamas unity government until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. I also hope that the President will make clear that his Administration recognizes the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967, and the need for an extended presence by the IDF in the Jordan River Valley.
“In the past few months, the forces of freedom and self-determination have begun to move inexorably through the region. It is in that movement where we can find the greatest hope for peace between neighbors in the region, including Israelis and Palestinians.”
“Unfortunately, President Obama’s important and constructive speech embracing and supporting the peaceful, democratic revolutions in the Arab world was also undermined by an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back.
“While the President made some strong statements about the “unshakeable” support for Israel’s security and rightly criticized the Palestinian pursuit of a symbolic statehood declaration at the UN in September, his unilateral call for negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps -- the first time any president has adopted this position -- was profoundly ill-advised. As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.
“In particular, the President’s remarks have revived and exacerbated fears in Israel about the commitment and understanding of this Administration with regard to their unique security situation. The fact is, while the exciting and hopeful new reality in the Arab world is the Arab spring, the newest reality in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not hopeful. It is the threatening new unity government between the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a group which the U.S. government has long designated as terrorist because it is committed to violence and the destruction of Israel.
“In the days ahead, I hope President Obama will make clear Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a Fatah-Hamas unity government until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. I also hope that the President will make clear that his Administration recognizes the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967, and the need for an extended presence by the IDF in the Jordan River Valley.
“In the past few months, the forces of freedom and self-determination have begun to move inexorably through the region. It is in that movement where we can find the greatest hope for peace between neighbors in the region, including Israelis and Palestinians.”
Friday, May 20, 2011
Aid to PA will fund salaries for terrorists
From PMW, May 20, 2011, by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik:
The PA has defined by law which Palestinians would be considered "prisoners."
A law published in the official Palestinian Authority Registry last month grants all Palestinians and Israeli Arabs imprisoned in Israel for terror crimes a monthly salary from the PA. The Arabic word the PA uses for this payment is "ratib," meaning "salary." Palestinian Media Watch has reported numerous times on Palestinian Authority glorification of terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons. Following the signing of this new law, the PA is now paying a salary to these prisoners.
The PA has defined by law which Palestinians would be considered "prisoners."
"Anyone imprisoned in the occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the struggle against the occupation."
[Ch. 1 of Law of Prisoners, 2004/19,
passed and published by the PA Chairman and Government, December 2004.
The Prisoners' Centre for Studies,www.alasra.ps Accessed May 9, 2011]
In other words, all Palestinians in Israeli prisons for terror crimes officially join the PA payroll. According to the definition in the PA law, Palestinian car thieves in Israeli prisons will not receive a salary, but Hamas and Fatah terrorist murderers will.
The PA also gives a salary to Israeli Arabs convicted of terror crimes against Israel - the country of which they are citizens. PA benefits to Israeli Arab terrorists, in fact, are greater than the ones extended to Palestinian terrorists.
Those serving more than 20-year sentences will receive a greater PA salary than prisoners serving shorter sentences, the new PA law establishes. Salaries are to be paid from the day of arrest until release.
Those serving more than 20-year sentences will receive a greater PA salary than prisoners serving shorter sentences, the new PA law establishes. Salaries are to be paid from the day of arrest until release.
More than 6,000 Palestinian prisoners are currently serving time in Israeli prisons for terror-related offenses. Among those now eligible are Abdullah Barghouti, serving 67 life sentences; Hassan Salameh, serving 38 life sentences; and Jamal Abu Al-Hijja, serving nine life sentences, all of whom are imprisoned for planning suicide bombings. These three terrorists were recently called "heroic" by the official PA daily...
Follow the link to see full article.
Follow the link to see full article.
Republicans blast Obama's Recognition of Pre-1967 Borders
From Newsmax Wires, Thursday, 19 May 2011:
Conservatives led by Florida Republican Allen West Thursday were quick to blast President Barack Obama's game-changing recognition of a Palestinian state existing along Israel's pre-1967 borders — a decision that many described as an existential threat for the Jewish state.
Conservatives led by Florida Republican Allen West Thursday were quick to blast President Barack Obama's game-changing recognition of a Palestinian state existing along Israel's pre-1967 borders — a decision that many described as an existential threat for the Jewish state.
"Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date..." said West, R-Fla., one of the leading Tea Party thinkers in the House Republican freshman class...
"From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
"The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism," said West, a career military veteran of the war in Iraq.
"Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
"In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
"America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
"It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
"While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: 'Who will now lead in Egypt?' and 'Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?'
"President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
Mahmoud Abbas and the persistence of Palestinian mythology
From guardian.co.uk, 
How depressing that, even as the plates are shifting in the Middle East, the PA president is still peddling a wornout narrative
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, signed a reconciliation agreement earlier this month. Photograph: EPA
In the week that President Obama makes a major new statement on US policy towards the Middle East, and prepares to meet Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the New York Times provided Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas with a platform to unveil his new strategy. In his 17 May op-ed article in the Times, "The Long Overdue Palestinian State", Abbas laid out his plan to request international recognition of the "State of Palestine" along the Green Line that is commonly referred to as the pre-June 1967 border – that is, to achieve statehood without negotiating with Israel.
Thus, it is his recipe to circumvent negotiations, form a state and retake Jerusalem, without grappling with Palestinian mythology or compromising in any way. In laying out the ingredients of his plan, Abbas reveals that, at the core, the Palestinian struggle is not actually about borders but about Israel's existence. It is the quest for a Palestinian sense of justice at the expense of a negotiated end to the conflict.
In order to make his case, Abbas needed to disguise the historical record for it to resonate with western audiences. Take, for example, his narrative of Israel's independence, which he and most Palestinians today refer to as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. He explains that when the question of Palestinian statehood last took centre stage at the United Nations general assembly, it was to vote on whether the Palestinian homeland should be partitioned into two states. Abbas writes:
His careful wording, "War and further expulsions ensued," is remarkably passive. Egypt, Jordan and Syria forced the 1967 war upon Israel, while the former two occupied what is today called the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But Palestinians were not then clamouring for an independent state alongside Israel or freedom from Arab occupation during the two decades between 1948 and 1967. Instead, in the wake of the 1967 war, the eight Arab heads of state released the Khartoum resolutions that formally declared: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…" In fact, two more decades would pass before the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise, at least rhetorically, Israel's right to exist (but not as a Jewish state), renounce terrorism and accept UN security council resolution 242. Indeed, it took 40 years after Israel's creation for the PLO to make the decision to seek negotiations with Israel, as opposed to openly seeking its destruction. But this game of words was merely a change in tactics; the goal remained the same.
To pick up on Abbas's selective historical prism: further rejections ensued. Even Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan realised it was time to say yes to a Palestinian state when he met with Yasser Arafat a few hours before the Palestinian leader's Oval Office meeting with President Clinton on 2 January 2001. That meeting in the White House was designed for Arafat to either accept or reject the now famous Clinton Parameters that contained the contours of a final settlement. Prince Bandar asked Arafat (pdf):
Historical distortions aside, the most telling aspect of Abbas's op-ed in the New York Times is his concentration on the Palestinian refugee issue. Indeed, securing the unlimited return of Palestinian refugees to Israel remains a Palestinian strategic principle, not a negotiating tactic. Abbas begins his article with the story of his expulsion from Safed during the 1948 war. While employing the third person narrative, he explains, "Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their homeland, they were denied that most basic human right." Yet Safed is in pre-1967 Israel and not a part of the territory he currently demands for a Palestinian state. Instead, he is demanding a so-called right of return of an estimated 4.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, a country with just over 7 million people, 20% of whom are Arabs. In essence, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian National Authority isn't just asking the international community for a Palestinian state, he is asking for the Israeli state to boot.
If this plan sounds familiar, that is because it is the phased approach to Israel's destruction that is currently and publicly endorsed by Hamas. But gaining statehood is not enough for Abbas or his Fatah organisation either. He explains that UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, "would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice." So, beyond gaining statehood and strangling Israel with millions of Palestinian refugees, the Abbas plan is then to sue Israel and "pursue claims" in any international forum that will listen. Such motives do not bespeak the "peace-loving nation" that would be a Palestinian state.
Given both Fatah's and Hamas's long-term goal vis-Ã -vis Israel, it is no wonder they recently formed a unity government. The fact is that the main difference today between Fatah and Hamas is over the questions of what role Islam should play and the extent to which terrorist bombings, missile attacks and kidnappings should play a part in realising their dream of statehood. And while Abbas may want the US and the west to believe he is serious when he claims, "Negotiations remain our first option," the truth is that it is Abbas himself who walked away from the negotiating table and who continues to refuse to negotiate with Israel.
Abbas's unilateral plan makes crystal clear that, for the PA, the issue today is not 1967 and a question of borders, but rather 1948 and Israel's existence. After all, according to the Palestinian narrative as conveyed by Abbas, it is Israel's existence that is the Palestinian nakba, or catastrophe, not the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that began in 1967.
If the Palestinians had accepted the November 1947 UN general assembly partition plan, they could be celebrating their 63rd year of independence alongside Israel. There would have been no war and no Palestinian refugees. But that ship has sailed. Contrary to Abbas's plan, today the only pathway forward is at the negotiating table with Israel. And those negotiations are doomed to fail until Palestinian leaders compromise with their own mythology and accept a solution that provides for both a Palestinian Arab state and Israeli Jewish state living side by side in peace.
Thus, it is his recipe to circumvent negotiations, form a state and retake Jerusalem, without grappling with Palestinian mythology or compromising in any way. In laying out the ingredients of his plan, Abbas reveals that, at the core, the Palestinian struggle is not actually about borders but about Israel's existence. It is the quest for a Palestinian sense of justice at the expense of a negotiated end to the conflict.
In order to make his case, Abbas needed to disguise the historical record for it to resonate with western audiences. Take, for example, his narrative of Israel's independence, which he and most Palestinians today refer to as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. He explains that when the question of Palestinian statehood last took centre stage at the United Nations general assembly, it was to vote on whether the Palestinian homeland should be partitioned into two states. Abbas writes:
"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."Cleverly, Abbas has removed Palestinians from the stage of responsible actors. According to him, they played no role whatsoever – they were merely the victims of Israeli actions. Of course, the inconvenient truth is that Israel accepted the partition plan while the Palestinians and Arab states rejected it and, instead, launched a war against the nascent state of Israel. The Palestinian refugee problem – whose fate is central to Abbas's perception of justice – is a direct result of that war.
His careful wording, "War and further expulsions ensued," is remarkably passive. Egypt, Jordan and Syria forced the 1967 war upon Israel, while the former two occupied what is today called the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But Palestinians were not then clamouring for an independent state alongside Israel or freedom from Arab occupation during the two decades between 1948 and 1967. Instead, in the wake of the 1967 war, the eight Arab heads of state released the Khartoum resolutions that formally declared: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…" In fact, two more decades would pass before the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise, at least rhetorically, Israel's right to exist (but not as a Jewish state), renounce terrorism and accept UN security council resolution 242. Indeed, it took 40 years after Israel's creation for the PLO to make the decision to seek negotiations with Israel, as opposed to openly seeking its destruction. But this game of words was merely a change in tactics; the goal remained the same.
To pick up on Abbas's selective historical prism: further rejections ensued. Even Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan realised it was time to say yes to a Palestinian state when he met with Yasser Arafat a few hours before the Palestinian leader's Oval Office meeting with President Clinton on 2 January 2001. That meeting in the White House was designed for Arafat to either accept or reject the now famous Clinton Parameters that contained the contours of a final settlement. Prince Bandar asked Arafat (pdf):
"Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we said yes?"But again, Arafat said no. This is not the Palestinian narrative that Abbas would like to the world to hear because it would mean that as active actors in their struggle either against Israel or for statehood, Palestinians themselves bear much responsibility for their plight.
Historical distortions aside, the most telling aspect of Abbas's op-ed in the New York Times is his concentration on the Palestinian refugee issue. Indeed, securing the unlimited return of Palestinian refugees to Israel remains a Palestinian strategic principle, not a negotiating tactic. Abbas begins his article with the story of his expulsion from Safed during the 1948 war. While employing the third person narrative, he explains, "Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their homeland, they were denied that most basic human right." Yet Safed is in pre-1967 Israel and not a part of the territory he currently demands for a Palestinian state. Instead, he is demanding a so-called right of return of an estimated 4.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, a country with just over 7 million people, 20% of whom are Arabs. In essence, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian National Authority isn't just asking the international community for a Palestinian state, he is asking for the Israeli state to boot.
If this plan sounds familiar, that is because it is the phased approach to Israel's destruction that is currently and publicly endorsed by Hamas. But gaining statehood is not enough for Abbas or his Fatah organisation either. He explains that UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, "would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice." So, beyond gaining statehood and strangling Israel with millions of Palestinian refugees, the Abbas plan is then to sue Israel and "pursue claims" in any international forum that will listen. Such motives do not bespeak the "peace-loving nation" that would be a Palestinian state.
Given both Fatah's and Hamas's long-term goal vis-Ã -vis Israel, it is no wonder they recently formed a unity government. The fact is that the main difference today between Fatah and Hamas is over the questions of what role Islam should play and the extent to which terrorist bombings, missile attacks and kidnappings should play a part in realising their dream of statehood. And while Abbas may want the US and the west to believe he is serious when he claims, "Negotiations remain our first option," the truth is that it is Abbas himself who walked away from the negotiating table and who continues to refuse to negotiate with Israel.
Abbas's unilateral plan makes crystal clear that, for the PA, the issue today is not 1967 and a question of borders, but rather 1948 and Israel's existence. After all, according to the Palestinian narrative as conveyed by Abbas, it is Israel's existence that is the Palestinian nakba, or catastrophe, not the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that began in 1967.
If the Palestinians had accepted the November 1947 UN general assembly partition plan, they could be celebrating their 63rd year of independence alongside Israel. There would have been no war and no Palestinian refugees. But that ship has sailed. Contrary to Abbas's plan, today the only pathway forward is at the negotiating table with Israel. And those negotiations are doomed to fail until Palestinian leaders compromise with their own mythology and accept a solution that provides for both a Palestinian Arab state and Israeli Jewish state living side by side in peace.
US should not tolerate Hamas
From Politico 17 May 2011, by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), House majority leader, and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), chief deputy whip:
Under the new accord, for the first time, Hamas’s TV broadcasts are to be sent into the West Bank. Shows designed to poison the minds of young Palestinians by lauding the ways of jihad and perpetuating hateful lies about Israel, Jews and the U.S. will likely further radicalize the West Bank.
The last time the PA partnered with Hamas, the latter forcibly removed the former from the Gaza Strip and created a virtual terrorist state on Israel’s borders. Six years and thousands of rockets and mortars later, many Israeli civilian communities are still paying the price. The U.S. must not allow this to be repeated in the West Bank.
Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel’s security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets set to visit Washington this week, the PA has made its move against peace. It has embraced a regime of terror — one that mourns bin Laden’s death — even as it now hopes for the U.N. to unilaterally grant it a state in a vote this coming September. The Obama administration must stand united with the American people, and with Israel, to oppose this vote.
In a dangerous region, Israel is a democratic ally bound to us by a shared set of beliefs in freedom, peace and human progress. Serving on the front lines of the struggle against terrorism and Iranian-backed aggression, Israel is our vital strategic asset that provides stability to a volatile neighborhood.
The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel.
The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.
Terror in the Palestinian territories has taken a decisive step forward. Peace is in retreat.
Remember, these are the same broadcasts that notoriously aired a Mickey Mouse-like cartoon character teaching children to “annihilate the Jews.”
The last time the PA partnered with Hamas, the latter forcibly removed the former from the Gaza Strip and created a virtual terrorist state on Israel’s borders. Six years and thousands of rockets and mortars later, many Israeli civilian communities are still paying the price. The U.S. must not allow this to be repeated in the West Bank.
Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel’s security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets set to visit Washington this week, the PA has made its move against peace. It has embraced a regime of terror — one that mourns bin Laden’s death — even as it now hopes for the U.N. to unilaterally grant it a state in a vote this coming September. The Obama administration must stand united with the American people, and with Israel, to oppose this vote.
In a dangerous region, Israel is a democratic ally bound to us by a shared set of beliefs in freedom, peace and human progress. Serving on the front lines of the struggle against terrorism and Iranian-backed aggression, Israel is our vital strategic asset that provides stability to a volatile neighborhood.
The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel.
The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.
Sceptical Reaction to Obama's speech
From IsraelNationalNews.com, 19 May 2011, by Gavriel Queenann:
Nationalist Israeli lawmakers were taken aback by US President Barack Obama's "new chapter in American diplomacy" outlined Thursday during his much expected Mideast policy address at the State Department.
Obama ambushed Netanyahu, who had outlined Israel's conditions for peace earlier this week, and demanded a "full and phased withdrawal" by Israel from "occupied lands" citing the "1967 border." Before his address, Obama had assured Israeli officials he would not address specifics of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Reacting to Obama's speech, Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a full withdrawal from the West Bank, saying the 1967 lines were "indefensible" and would leave major Jewish settlements outside Israel. Netanyahu rejects any pullout from east Jerusalem.
Netanyahu said he would urge Obama to endorse a 2004 American commitment, made by then President George W. Bush, to Israel. In a letter at the time, Bush said a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines was "unrealistic" and a future peace agreement would have to recognize "new realities on the ground."
With peacemaking stalled for months, the Palestinians have said they will ask the United Nations to recognize their independence in September, with or without a peace deal.
In his speech, Obama rejected the U.N. push. "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.
Nationalist Israeli lawmakers were taken aback by US President Barack Obama's "new chapter in American diplomacy" outlined Thursday during his much expected Mideast policy address at the State Department.
Obama ambushed Netanyahu, who had outlined Israel's conditions for peace earlier this week, and demanded a "full and phased withdrawal" by Israel from "occupied lands" citing the "1967 border." Before his address, Obama had assured Israeli officials he would not address specifics of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"President Barack Hussein Obama adopted the phased plan of Yasser Arafat," ... noting Arafat's plan was not for peace, but for the gradual destruction of Israel, piece by piece. "He is demanding [of] Netanyahu a withdrawal from all of Judea and Samaria without even ending the conflict. He left the Prime Minister only one option, which is to tell him to 'forget about it,'" [MK Danny] Danon said.
Danon also lauded Prime Minister Netanyahu's strong response to Obama's position, which included the demand that the US honor commitments made to the Jewish state in 2004 by former President George W. Bush.
"I commend the prime minister for issuing a clear response that this policy is unacceptable," Danon said.
[MK] Aryeh Eldad (National Union) said Obama's position was nothing knew – and definitively insane.
"I wonder why all the pundits were so excited about Obama saying '1967 borders' as if he invented something knew. We tend to forget these were the Clinton guidelines, that Barak negotiated with Arafat based on them. Ehud Olmert also negotiated on these terms with Abu Mazen - and they all failed," Eldad said.
"It is a wonder the American president forgot Einstein's definition of insanity ...doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'"...
From Fox News, 19 May 2011, by Associated Press:
JERUSALEM – Israel's prime minister on Thursday gave a cool reception to President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech, warning a withdrawal from the West Bank wold leave Israel vulnerable to attack and setting up what could be a tense meeting at the White House.
In his speech, Obama endorsed the Palestinian position on the borders of their future state, saying it should be based on Israel's lines before the 1967 Mideast war. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the fighting, and the Palestinians claim those areas for their state.
...The U.S., the international community and even past Israeli governments have endorsed a settlement based on the 1967 lines, but Obama was far more explicit than in the past. His position appeared to put him at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not accepted the concept.
Netanyahu heads to the White House on Friday and said he would seek clarifications.
Behind the rhetoric, though, was the possibility of finding common ground. Obama said he would support agreed-upon territorial swaps between the Israel and the Palestinians, leaving the door open for Israel to retain major West Bank settlements, where the vast majority of its nearly 300,000 Jewish settlers live.
Netanyahu said he would urge Obama to endorse a 2004 American commitment, made by then President George W. Bush, to Israel. In a letter at the time, Bush said a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines was "unrealistic" and a future peace agreement would have to recognize "new realities on the ground."
Israelis have interpreted Bush's commitment as U.S. support for retaining the major settlement blocs. Earlier this week, Netanyahu said Israel would have to retain the blocs as part of any future peace agreement.
But Netanyahu also wants to keep other parts of the West Bank, including a strategic section of land along the Jordanian border that he believes is vital to Israel's security. The Palestinians oppose any Israeli presence in their future state.
Netanyahu said he would reiterate his security demands at Friday's meeting.
Netanyahu said he plans to raise other demands: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, guarantees that Palestinian refugees be resettled outside of Israel and condemnation of an emerging Palestinian government that is to include the anti-Israel Hamas militant group.
It was not immediately clear whether Obama's statement on the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations — something the Palestinians have long sought — would be sufficient to persuade the Palestinians to drop their quest for U.N. recognition...
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The myth of Palestinian Arab non-violent "resistance"
From the "elder of ziyon", Wednesday, May 18, 2011:
The idea that the first six months of the revolt were non-violent is a complete falsehood. As I have proven previously, Arabs were killing Jews from the very beginning of the revolt, in April 1936. On April 22, 7 were killed in Jaffa. Later that week some 6000 Jaffa Jews evacuated their homes from fear of the "nonviolent" demonstrations.
In May, three were killed at a bomb thrown at the Edison Cinema, and three more were shot dead in Jerusalem.
The "Great Revolt" was violent through and through, and ended up with the murders of not only many Jews and British, but also Arabs killing hundreds of other Arabs who they felt were not sufficiently supportive of the cause.
...His lies don't end there.
In fact, there were some 164 Israelis killed during that "non-violent" intifada. Not only that, but about 1000 Palestinian Arabs were killed - by other Palestinian Arabs, who claimed that they were "collaborators'!
In Foreign Policy, Yousef Munayyer writes about "Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence."
He implies that the first violence done by Palestinian Arabs was only in 1935:
He implies that the first violence done by Palestinian Arabs was only in 1935:
It wasn't until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began...
Amazingly, Munayyer doesn't say a word about the 1920 Arab riots (5 Jews killed), the 1921 Arab riots (43 Jews killed) and the 1929 Arab pogroms (over 100 Jews slaughtered.)
...let's look at how he describes the Arab revolts of 1936-1939, which Arabs call the Great Rebellion:
...let's look at how he describes the Arab revolts of 1936-1939, which Arabs call the Great Rebellion:
The first phases of this revolt began with nonviolent resistance in the form of more strikes and protests, and the economy ground to a halt for six months when Palestinian leaders called for a work stoppage. This was put down harshly by the mandatory government...
The idea that the first six months of the revolt were non-violent is a complete falsehood. As I have proven previously, Arabs were killing Jews from the very beginning of the revolt, in April 1936. On April 22, 7 were killed in Jaffa. Later that week some 6000 Jaffa Jews evacuated their homes from fear of the "nonviolent" demonstrations.
In May, three were killed at a bomb thrown at the Edison Cinema, and three more were shot dead in Jerusalem.
The "Great Revolt" was violent through and through, and ended up with the murders of not only many Jews and British, but also Arabs killing hundreds of other Arabs who they felt were not sufficiently supportive of the cause.
...His lies don't end there.
... In the first intifada of the late 1980s, Palestinians employed various nonviolent tactics, from mass demonstrations to strikes to protests. Even though the vast majority of the activism was nonviolent, it is the mostly symbolic stone-throwing that many remember.
In fact, there were some 164 Israelis killed during that "non-violent" intifada. Not only that, but about 1000 Palestinian Arabs were killed - by other Palestinian Arabs, who claimed that they were "collaborators'!
Yet, only 12 of the 70,000 Israeli soldiers regularly posted in occupied territories during the intifada died in the four-year uprising, clearly demonstrating the restraint with which Palestinian dissent was carried out.
Notice how he frames his statement, that "only" 12 soldiers in the territories were killed. In fact, in total, some 60 of Israel's fatalities were soldiers....
The PA is not a true partner for peace
From The WJC, 17 May 2011:
Israel was willing to have real peace with the Palestinians, but the current Palestinian administration in Ramallah was not a true partner for peace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the Knesset.
The Jewish state would be willing to make compromises, including ceding land to the Palestinians, in return for peace, Netanyahu told the Israeli parliamentarians at the opening of the Knesset’s summer session and a day after Arab demonstrators violently marked ‘Nakba’ Day.
"This is not a conflict about 1967, but about 1948, when the State of Israel was established," Netanyahu said, suggesting that it was not just the occupied territories that are at the root of the problem with the Palestinians.
"We cannot bury our heads in the sand," he said. "We must look at this reality with open eyes. We must call this child by its name – the reason there is no peace is because the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
Netanyahu, who will meet with US President Barack Obama and address both houses of Congress next week, made a commitment to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and called for Palestinian refugees to be absorbed outside of the Jewish state. He agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state that does not threaten Israel's security, called for keeping large West Bank settlements as part of Israel and for Jerusalem to be the "undivided capital" of Israel. The prime minister also called on the opposition to join in a unity government "while our very existence is being challenged." ...
Israel was willing to have real peace with the Palestinians, but the current Palestinian administration in Ramallah was not a true partner for peace, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the Knesset.
The Jewish state would be willing to make compromises, including ceding land to the Palestinians, in return for peace, Netanyahu told the Israeli parliamentarians at the opening of the Knesset’s summer session and a day after Arab demonstrators violently marked ‘Nakba’ Day.
"This is not a conflict about 1967, but about 1948, when the State of Israel was established," Netanyahu said, suggesting that it was not just the occupied territories that are at the root of the problem with the Palestinians.
"We cannot bury our heads in the sand," he said. "We must look at this reality with open eyes. We must call this child by its name – the reason there is no peace is because the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
Netanyahu, who will meet with US President Barack Obama and address both houses of Congress next week, made a commitment to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and called for Palestinian refugees to be absorbed outside of the Jewish state. He agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state that does not threaten Israel's security, called for keeping large West Bank settlements as part of Israel and for Jerusalem to be the "undivided capital" of Israel. The prime minister also called on the opposition to join in a unity government "while our very existence is being challenged." ...
The "Arab Spring" should learn from the “Jewish Spring”
From Huffington Post, May 17, 2011, by Danny Ayalon:
It is extraordinary that many supporters of the so-called 'Arab Spring' have criticized and condemned the only real 'Spring' to have successfully brought democracy and freedom to the Middle East. As of last week, the 'Jewish Spring' is 63 years old and showing no signs of weakening.
While many take the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in Israel for granted, the details could serve as an inspiration for the region.
Since the expulsion and exile from the Land of Israel by the Romans, the Jewish People have largely only known repression, persecution and massacres. Wherever many of our ancestors lived they yearned for freedom and equality with the nations of the world by returning to the land that they were expelled from two thousand years prior and rejoining the remnant who maintained the Jewish presence in Israel.
The Jewish struggle for full civil and national rights is unparalleled in the annals of time. No other people survived such a long exile with their language, civilization, culture and attachment to homeland intact.
Perhaps even more remarkably, the reestablished Jewish State created a stable liberal democracy out of a population, the vast majority of whom had never experienced representative government for even one day. While there are those who claim that the lack of democracy in Arab history negates its possibility of success, their Semitic cousins, the Jews, have proven that lack of experience should not prove a barrier.
Moreover, Israel is a bastion of decency and human rights. Our Declaration of Independence is the only such document that actively invokes the universalist principles of the United Nations Charter. Furthermore, Israel's founding document extended a hand of peace and fraternity to all of our neighbors, even while many at that moment were massing at the Jewish State's borders in a war of attempted extermination.
If the 'Arab Spring' is to succeed it could do worse than learn from the Israel experience. While successive Arab rulers have instilled a 'scapegoat mentality' in parts of the population, this must be removed at the earliest opportunity. Arabs have been distracted from the real issues for too long by blaming all the ills of the Middle East on the colonial powers, Israel, the U.S. and the West in general.
The broken bodies and souls that escaped the Holocaust, the excesses of Communism and suppression as dhimms in Arab lands had ample reasons for failure bar one, the determination to succeed, build and look forward.
Israel began its existence as a developing nation with all of the challenges that entails, and many others, like mass immigration, and boycotts and other embargoes laid against it. Nevertheless, Israel met all these challenges and many more, and is a proven success by any measure.
The challenges facing the Arab world are many. The UNDP Human Development Report for Arab states report in 2009 placed the Arab world at the lowest level on the development ladder. The ever-increasing poverty, unemployment, desertification, water scarcity, rising food prices, civil wars, sectarian and ethnic conflicts make the task daunting.
According to the report, the Arab countries will need to create around 51 million new jobs by 2020 just to maintain their current precarious unemployment figures.
Many of these challenges were Israel's challenges. However, regardless of the fact that Israel had to fight many bloody wars and spend an enormous amount of its budget on defense, Israelis continue excelling in many areas.
Perhaps Israel's key is not letting our challenges define us. While many around the world associate Israel with war and conflict, Israelis define themselves by their achievements as a society.
We measure ourselves by the most developed and wealthy nations and in areas such as hi-tech, innovation, medicine and finance and others, we compare well. Perhaps our over-achieving has entitled many to criticize us more than our neighbors. However, we started with far fewer resources than any in our region, so if we have reached a high level of development it should be to our credit, not our detriment.
Few understand the yearning for freedom and an end to repression more than the Jewish People. We commend those in the Arab world who have the courage to end their tyranny. However, we should not confuse the start of the process with the process itself. There is a long and difficult road ahead.
I hope Israel can serve as a model for the region. The Jewish Spring is a remarkable story and disproves many of the geographic and historic arguments that seek to excuse failed societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
The West has a role too, the narrative of victimization and the allowance of moral relativism must cease. The Arab world must be deemed accountable as any other, when nations, international organizations and NGO's hold a people to a different standard; this discourages and does not embolden those that seek change.
Israel remains to this day under the largest magnifying glass of the international community and we have been held to the highest standards, some would say unfairly so. If the Arab Spring is to match the Jewish Spring, it deserves no less.
It is extraordinary that many supporters of the so-called 'Arab Spring' have criticized and condemned the only real 'Spring' to have successfully brought democracy and freedom to the Middle East. As of last week, the 'Jewish Spring' is 63 years old and showing no signs of weakening.
While many take the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in Israel for granted, the details could serve as an inspiration for the region.
Since the expulsion and exile from the Land of Israel by the Romans, the Jewish People have largely only known repression, persecution and massacres. Wherever many of our ancestors lived they yearned for freedom and equality with the nations of the world by returning to the land that they were expelled from two thousand years prior and rejoining the remnant who maintained the Jewish presence in Israel.
The Jewish struggle for full civil and national rights is unparalleled in the annals of time. No other people survived such a long exile with their language, civilization, culture and attachment to homeland intact.
Perhaps even more remarkably, the reestablished Jewish State created a stable liberal democracy out of a population, the vast majority of whom had never experienced representative government for even one day. While there are those who claim that the lack of democracy in Arab history negates its possibility of success, their Semitic cousins, the Jews, have proven that lack of experience should not prove a barrier.
Moreover, Israel is a bastion of decency and human rights. Our Declaration of Independence is the only such document that actively invokes the universalist principles of the United Nations Charter. Furthermore, Israel's founding document extended a hand of peace and fraternity to all of our neighbors, even while many at that moment were massing at the Jewish State's borders in a war of attempted extermination.
If the 'Arab Spring' is to succeed it could do worse than learn from the Israel experience. While successive Arab rulers have instilled a 'scapegoat mentality' in parts of the population, this must be removed at the earliest opportunity. Arabs have been distracted from the real issues for too long by blaming all the ills of the Middle East on the colonial powers, Israel, the U.S. and the West in general.
The broken bodies and souls that escaped the Holocaust, the excesses of Communism and suppression as dhimms in Arab lands had ample reasons for failure bar one, the determination to succeed, build and look forward.
Israel began its existence as a developing nation with all of the challenges that entails, and many others, like mass immigration, and boycotts and other embargoes laid against it. Nevertheless, Israel met all these challenges and many more, and is a proven success by any measure.
The challenges facing the Arab world are many. The UNDP Human Development Report for Arab states report in 2009 placed the Arab world at the lowest level on the development ladder. The ever-increasing poverty, unemployment, desertification, water scarcity, rising food prices, civil wars, sectarian and ethnic conflicts make the task daunting.
According to the report, the Arab countries will need to create around 51 million new jobs by 2020 just to maintain their current precarious unemployment figures.
Many of these challenges were Israel's challenges. However, regardless of the fact that Israel had to fight many bloody wars and spend an enormous amount of its budget on defense, Israelis continue excelling in many areas.
Perhaps Israel's key is not letting our challenges define us. While many around the world associate Israel with war and conflict, Israelis define themselves by their achievements as a society.
We measure ourselves by the most developed and wealthy nations and in areas such as hi-tech, innovation, medicine and finance and others, we compare well. Perhaps our over-achieving has entitled many to criticize us more than our neighbors. However, we started with far fewer resources than any in our region, so if we have reached a high level of development it should be to our credit, not our detriment.
Few understand the yearning for freedom and an end to repression more than the Jewish People. We commend those in the Arab world who have the courage to end their tyranny. However, we should not confuse the start of the process with the process itself. There is a long and difficult road ahead.
I hope Israel can serve as a model for the region. The Jewish Spring is a remarkable story and disproves many of the geographic and historic arguments that seek to excuse failed societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
The West has a role too, the narrative of victimization and the allowance of moral relativism must cease. The Arab world must be deemed accountable as any other, when nations, international organizations and NGO's hold a people to a different standard; this discourages and does not embolden those that seek change.
Israel remains to this day under the largest magnifying glass of the international community and we have been held to the highest standards, some would say unfairly so. If the Arab Spring is to match the Jewish Spring, it deserves no less.
Palestinian Authority incitement in schools
From a Palestinian Media Watch Special Report, 18 May 2011:
On the occasion of the 63rd anniversary of Israel's independence, Palestinian Media Watch has prepared a comprehensive report describing how the establishment of the state is depicted in the Palestinian Authority's educational system and official media, both of which operate under the supervision of PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The report documents how the establishment of Israel and its continued existence are demonized by spokesmen and representatives of the PA in the official controlled media.
The report does not include quotes from the media controlled by Hamas, since the Hamas position concerning Israel's existence is well-known and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. The aim of the report is to document the PA positions expressed in internal Palestinian discourse in Arabic that are not expressed to the outside world. The report focuses on statements by senior PA officials, columnists in the official PA press, and program hosts and reporters on PA TV, from 2010-2011.
Abstract:
"The Zionist gangs stole Palestine ... and established the state of Israel"
- this quote, from an official PA 12th Grade schoolbook, is an accurate depiction of how the PA educates its population to view the establishment of the State of Israel.
Presenting the creation of the state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA's non-recognition of Israel's right to exist. In order to create an ideological basis for this, the PA denies there was an ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel and also distorts modern history, presenting Zionism as a demonic Nazi-like phenomenon.
In order to explain what made Jews come to Israel, since they claim there was no historical connection to draw them, Zionism is presented as a colonialist movement created by the West to further its interests. First, the countries of Europe wanted to rid themselves of the Jews and needed a place for them. They also wanted a foreign body in the heart of the Arab world to serve Europe's colonialist aims. For these reasons, they sent the Jews to "steal Palestine."
Israel is further demonized through images and descriptions, such as "the foster child of the Nazis," "an organized terror state," "the cruelest enemy," etc. Accordingly, the idea of the State of Israel ceasing to exist is presented as the achievement of justice.
Today, following the establishment of a Fatah and Hamas unity government, many countries are demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as a condition for the world's recognition of their new government. Ironically, this very condition is violated daily by the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas.
The report:
1. "The Zionist gangs stole Palestine"
"The Zionist gangs stole Palestine" is a quote from a Palestinian Authority official 12th-Grade schoolbook. It encapsulates how the PA views - and educates its population to view - the establishment of the State of Israel. The position that the establishment of the state was an act of theft and a fundamental historical injustice is the basis for the PA's non-recognition of Israel's right to exist. The establishment of the state is presented as the result of crime, robbery and theft by foreigners with neither the right nor any historical connection to the place, with the deliberate aim of harming the Arab inhabitants of the land. The term "Zionist gangs" is prevalent in Palestinian discourse and refers to the generation that founded the state. The word "theft" refers to the acts of developing the land and establishing the state.
The following are some examples:
In a 12th-Grade schoolbook:
Special Ramadan supplement to the official PA daily features a daily competition with prizes. The text of the Balfour Declaration is shown, followed by the question:
PA TV item on the UN vote on the Partition Plan of 1948:
PA TV item on UN Resolution 194, broadcast on International Refugee Day:
Columnist in the PA daily under the headline, "Zionism reproduces the Holocaust":
PA TV news item about disagreements among Israeli ethnic groups:
Caricature in the official PA daily, depicting the establishment of the state ("1948") as a shark devouring "Palestine."
2. Not recognizing Israel's right to exist
In order to substantiate the claim that the establishment of the State of Israel was an act of theft, the PA engages in historical revision. The ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel is erased, while modern Jewish history is distorted in order to present Zionism as a demonic phenomenon. Thus,, the PA leadership creates the ideological basis for negating Israel's right to exist. PA spokesmen have claimed that the Jewish nation is an "invented nation," intended to justify Zionism; this ignores the reality of Zionism as the expression of the aspirations of the Jewish people returning to its homeland. This historical revision and erasure of the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel results in the verdict that the State of Israel has no right to exist.
The following are some examples:
PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash:
Adli Sadeq, columnist for the official PA daily:
Jordanian academic Muhammad Dohal, interviewed on PA TV documentary program about the UN Partition Plan:
On the same program, Jordanian scholar Daoud Al-Burin spoke about the alternatives that were raised for the Jewish State. He concluded:
In a ceremony broadcast on PA TV marking Land Day:
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
Abd Al-Rahman, columnist for the official PA daily, on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration:
3. Establishment of the State of Israel presented as "colonialist" plan
In order to explain Israel's existence as a country of immigrants who have no connection with the land, the claim is made - in President Mahmoud Abbas's name - that "the Zionist movement is not Jewish, nor did it flow from the desire of the Jews themselves; rather, it was an imperialist colonialist movement which sought to use the Jews and to enlist them for the benefit of the west's colonialist plans." (See source below.) In other words, the State of Israel is the result of an international imperialist plot. The PA argues that the countries of Europe (led by Britain) tried to rid themselves of the Jews, who were a burden to them. They wanted a foreign body in the heart of the Arab world and establishing a state for the Jews there served this colonialist purpose.
The following are some examples:
PA President Mahmoud Abbas raised this claim in his research, as testified by a professor of political science at Bir Zeit University, Dr. Samih Hamouda:
PA TV program reviewing the 20th history of the region, as reflected in the paintings of Palestinian artist Ismail Shammout:
Ahmad Hanoun, senior member of the PLO department for refugee affairs:
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist for the official PA daily:
PA TV report on the anniversary of the Al-Karameh battle of 1968:
4. Demonic images and descriptions of the State of Israel
The following are some examples:
Coordinator of the Prisoners' Committee of the National and Islamic Parties, Yasser Mazhar, on behalf of the Committee:
Jamal Tamimi, a lecturer in communications at Al-Quds University, responding to the question, Where is Israel is headed?
Senior Fatah member, Marwan Barghouti, serving 5 life sentences in Israel for his involvement in terror activities, in an interview from prison:
Adel Abed Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
In an announcement published by the PLO Executive Council on the 22nd anniversary of the Palestinian declaration of independence (1988):
In an article on the subject of the huge fire in the Carmel Forest last December:
5. Justice will be achieved when Israel ceases to exist
The Palestinian Authority policy is to present the conflict with Israel as a struggle between Palestinians who are said to be innocent, with justice on their side, and Israel, which is said to be oppressive and cruel, void of legitimate rights. For this reason, the PA objective - having a world without the State of Israel - is not perceived as negative or unjust towards the citizens of Israel. Rather, it is presented as the attainment of historical justice.
A Fatah member of the Palestinian Parliament, Najat Abu-Bakr, stated this explicitly:
The same message was conveyed by the narrator on a PA TV program about refugee camps. The narrator addresses the Jews of Israel, asking them to leave - in the name of justice:
Conclusions
The call for Jews to leave Israel that was expressed on official PA TV - "Return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland" - exemplifies the basis of the Palestinian Authority ideology, as documented in this report. The PA's logic is:
Since "the Zionist gangs stole Palestine," justice will be attained only when that which was stolen is returned.
Since "recognition of Israel's right to be a state in this region represents an environmental and security hazard," then for the sake of peace, justice demands that the danger be neutralized.
Since "the European and American forces of evil facilitated for them [the Jews] the idea of a 'national home'... with the aim of tearing apart the Arab land, by planting them as an imperialist colonialist enterprise in Arab Palestine," then justice will be achieved only when this "colonialist enterprise" ceases to exist.
Since "Israel is the foster child of Nazism, and a strategic ally of racism, which has disappeared from the world - except for there," then justice demands the removal of the last remnant of Nazism in the world.
This position--that the State of Israel has no right to exist and therefore justice will be attained only with its termination--is a primary component of Palestinian Authority ideology. Today, following the establishment of a Fatah and Hamas unity government, many countries are demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as a condition for the world's recognition of their new government. Ironically, it is this very condition that the Palestinian Authority itself under Mahmoud Abbas violates daily.
On the occasion of the 63rd anniversary of Israel's independence, Palestinian Media Watch has prepared a comprehensive report describing how the establishment of the state is depicted in the Palestinian Authority's educational system and official media, both of which operate under the supervision of PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The report documents how the establishment of Israel and its continued existence are demonized by spokesmen and representatives of the PA in the official controlled media.
The report does not include quotes from the media controlled by Hamas, since the Hamas position concerning Israel's existence is well-known and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. The aim of the report is to document the PA positions expressed in internal Palestinian discourse in Arabic that are not expressed to the outside world. The report focuses on statements by senior PA officials, columnists in the official PA press, and program hosts and reporters on PA TV, from 2010-2011.
Abstract:
"The Zionist gangs stole Palestine ... and established the state of Israel"
- this quote, from an official PA 12th Grade schoolbook, is an accurate depiction of how the PA educates its population to view the establishment of the State of Israel.
Presenting the creation of the state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA's non-recognition of Israel's right to exist. In order to create an ideological basis for this, the PA denies there was an ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel and also distorts modern history, presenting Zionism as a demonic Nazi-like phenomenon.
In order to explain what made Jews come to Israel, since they claim there was no historical connection to draw them, Zionism is presented as a colonialist movement created by the West to further its interests. First, the countries of Europe wanted to rid themselves of the Jews and needed a place for them. They also wanted a foreign body in the heart of the Arab world to serve Europe's colonialist aims. For these reasons, they sent the Jews to "steal Palestine."
Israel is further demonized through images and descriptions, such as "the foster child of the Nazis," "an organized terror state," "the cruelest enemy," etc. Accordingly, the idea of the State of Israel ceasing to exist is presented as the achievement of justice.
Today, following the establishment of a Fatah and Hamas unity government, many countries are demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as a condition for the world's recognition of their new government. Ironically, this very condition is violated daily by the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas.
The report:
1. "The Zionist gangs stole Palestine"
2. Not recognizing Israel's right to exist
3. Establishment of the State of Israel presented as "colonialist" plan
4. Demonic images and descriptions of the State of Israel
5. Justice will be achieved when Israel ceases to exist
1. "The Zionist gangs stole Palestine"
"The Zionist gangs stole Palestine" is a quote from a Palestinian Authority official 12th-Grade schoolbook. It encapsulates how the PA views - and educates its population to view - the establishment of the State of Israel. The position that the establishment of the state was an act of theft and a fundamental historical injustice is the basis for the PA's non-recognition of Israel's right to exist. The establishment of the state is presented as the result of crime, robbery and theft by foreigners with neither the right nor any historical connection to the place, with the deliberate aim of harming the Arab inhabitants of the land. The term "Zionist gangs" is prevalent in Palestinian discourse and refers to the generation that founded the state. The word "theft" refers to the acts of developing the land and establishing the state.
The following are some examples:
In a 12th-Grade schoolbook:
"Palestine's war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people from their cities, their villages, their lands and their houses, and established the State of Israel."
[Arabic Language, Analysis, Literature and Criticism, Grade 12, p. 104.
The book is in current use.]
Special Ramadan supplement to the official PA daily features a daily competition with prizes. The text of the Balfour Declaration is shown, followed by the question:
"The cursed James Arthur Balfour Declaration led to the theft of the homeland and the expulsion of an entire people, in a campaign of ethnic cleansing unparalleled in modern history. On what date and what month in 1917 was this declaration issued?"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 7, 2010]
PA TV item on the UN vote on the Partition Plan of 1948:
"The Zionist leadership, in its declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, refrained from defining its borders - with the goal of justifying the plan for settlement and theft of Palestinian and Arab lands."
[PA TV (Fatah) Nov. 29, 2010]
PA TV item on UN Resolution 194, broadcast on International Refugee Day:
"The Resolution, which stipulated return and restitution for the Palestinian refugees who had been expelled by force from their homes and from their land by the Zionist gangs in 1948 in the greatest operation of ethnic cleansing, continues to be a black chapter in human history."
[PA TV (Fatah), June 20, 2010]
Columnist in the PA daily under the headline, "Zionism reproduces the Holocaust":
"They plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people, under the faded and false slogan, 'A nationless land for a landless nation."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 19, 2011]
PA TV news item about disagreements among Israeli ethnic groups:
"This [internal Israeli conflict] is not the first time, nor will it be the last, in the history of the conflicts between the [different Israeli] ethnic populations of the world among those who stole Palestine in search of an alleged homeland that would take them in."
[PA TV (Fatah), June 17, 2010]
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 23, 2010]
2. Not recognizing Israel's right to exist
In order to substantiate the claim that the establishment of the State of Israel was an act of theft, the PA engages in historical revision. The ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel is erased, while modern Jewish history is distorted in order to present Zionism as a demonic phenomenon. Thus,, the PA leadership creates the ideological basis for negating Israel's right to exist. PA spokesmen have claimed that the Jewish nation is an "invented nation," intended to justify Zionism; this ignores the reality of Zionism as the expression of the aspirations of the Jewish people returning to its homeland. This historical revision and erasure of the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel results in the verdict that the State of Israel has no right to exist.
The following are some examples:
PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash:
"History proves the Arab, Islamic and Palestinian right to this land and disproves all the Israeli claims that they have religious and historical rights in this land."
[PA TV interview (Fatah), March 2, 2010]
"The political science department at Bir Zeit University held... a political symposium with the participation of scholar Antoine Shalhat, who spoke about static and changing elements of Zionist ideology...
Shalhat said that the idea of Zionism is the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine and the invention of a new nationality, known as the Jewish nation, and that the first to propose this was the Jewish Theodore Herzl, who spoke in his book Altneuland about his ideas of establishing a Jewish state."
Shalhat said that the idea of Zionism is the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine and the invention of a new nationality, known as the Jewish nation, and that the first to propose this was the Jewish Theodore Herzl, who spoke in his book Altneuland about his ideas of establishing a Jewish state."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 27, 2010]
Adli Sadeq, columnist for the official PA daily:
"The very least [we can do] is to declare explicitly that recognition of Israel's right to be a state in this region represents an environmental and security hazard; it creates the basis for acute internal and regional tensions, and distorts history, just as it poisons the future."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 18, 2010]
Jordanian academic Muhammad Dohal, interviewed on PA TV documentary program about the UN Partition Plan:
"The Jews are hated in every society in which they have lived, because of their behavior relating to their great love of money. ... This was the source of their harm to the societies around them, including Palestinian society, Arab-Palestinian society. We all know that the Jews lived in Palestine and the Palestinian people adopted them, so to say, and they lived in dignity. But they contrived schemes by means of their secret organizations, which gave rise to the idea of the need to purchase tracts of land and to seize control of them, and then to claim that they were the owners of a great area of the land, and that they were the original inhabitants of this land, and that the people which had adopted them was simply accidental in this land... Their behavior led to [Shakespeare's] famous story, the story of Shylock about money lending, which clings to the Jews. This is how they harmed the societies that embraced them."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 10 and 17, 2010]
On the same program, Jordanian scholar Daoud Al-Burin spoke about the alternatives that were raised for the Jewish State. He concluded:
"After that they chose Palestine because of a supposed historical connection to Palestine."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 10 and 17, 2010]
In a ceremony broadcast on PA TV marking Land Day:
"The forces of evil conspired against them [the Palestinians] and in 1917 the cursed Balfour Declaration [was issued], establishing the right of the Jews on the land of Palestine."
[PA TV (Fatah), March 30, 2011]
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
"The false story of the Zionists, according to which Palestine is 'the promised land,' is simply a lie without any basis. No person of the Jewish faith who was born in any country of the world has the right to return to Palestine, other than Jews who were born in Palestine."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 16, 2010]
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
"The history and heritage of Jericho confirm the Arab-Palestinian-Canaanite narrative concerning the entire Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, negating anything else, especially the false Zionist narrative."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 21, 2010]
Abd Al-Rahman, columnist for the official PA daily, on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration:
"Today is a painful anniversary for the Palestinian people, the 93rd anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, in which those who had no ownership of the Palestinian soil and homeland - the British colonialists - gave to those who had no connection to the land, neither near nor distant - the Zionists, in order to realize a colonialist aim, in the service of the objectives of the colonialist West in the Arab region."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 2, 2010]
3. Establishment of the State of Israel presented as "colonialist" plan
In order to explain Israel's existence as a country of immigrants who have no connection with the land, the claim is made - in President Mahmoud Abbas's name - that "the Zionist movement is not Jewish, nor did it flow from the desire of the Jews themselves; rather, it was an imperialist colonialist movement which sought to use the Jews and to enlist them for the benefit of the west's colonialist plans." (See source below.) In other words, the State of Israel is the result of an international imperialist plot. The PA argues that the countries of Europe (led by Britain) tried to rid themselves of the Jews, who were a burden to them. They wanted a foreign body in the heart of the Arab world and establishing a state for the Jews there served this colonialist purpose.
The following are some examples:
PA President Mahmoud Abbas raised this claim in his research, as testified by a professor of political science at Bir Zeit University, Dr. Samih Hamouda:
"The department of political science at Bir Zeit University, in cooperation with Madar [The Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies], held a political symposium yesterday... Professor Samih Hamouda, from the department of political science at Bir Zeit University, presented an analysis of the research studies of President Mahmoud Abbas, on the subject of Zionist ideology. Prof. Hamouda said that in his writings and research, the President linked Zionism with imperialism, by examining the reasons for the growth of Zionism, through scientific analysis of European society and the problem of Jews in Europe, and linked this with western aspirations in the Arab East. He added, 'In the President [Abbas's] studies, the Zionist movement is not Jewish, nor did it flow from the desire of the Jews themselves; rather, it was an imperialist colonialist movement which sought to use the Jews and to enlist them for the benefit of the western colonialist plans.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 27, 2010]
PA TV program reviewing the 20th history of the region, as reflected in the paintings of Palestinian artist Ismail Shammout:
"At the beginning of the 20th century, the European colonialists - especially Britain - found that their interests fit the aspirations of the developing World Zionist Movement, and they began to offer their patronage and support, not only with promises, but with all means that would allow this racist movement [Zionism] to realize its primary goal: the establishment of a Jewish entity upon the land of Palestine, at the expense of the authentic Palestinian Arab nation..."
[PA TV (Fatah), July 28, 2010]
Ahmad Hanoun, senior member of the PLO department for refugee affairs:
"Most of the world participated, clearly and directly, in the plot against the Palestinian people. Meaning, they are partners in [creating] the tragedy that befell the Palestinian people. Nowhere [else] in history did the UN partition a land, giving it and allowing a part [of the population] that was not authentic to establish a state in that land, while not allowing the other nation to establish its state."
[PA TV (Fatah), Nov. 1, 2010]
Adel Abd Al-Rahman, columnist for the official PA daily:
"The evil European and American forces enabled [the Jews] to achieve the idea of a 'national home,' in order to be rid of them and to remove from European society the results and ramifications of the Holocaust which they had carried out against the Jews of Europe in Nazi Germany. This was [done] with the aim of tearing apart the Arab land, by planting them as an imperialist colonialist enterprise in Arab Palestine. Instead of opposing the West's colonialist plans and ideas, the Zionist Jews were glad to be the pawns of and fuel for the colonialist enterprise."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 19, 2011]
PA TV report on the anniversary of the Al-Karameh battle of 1968:
"The Al-Karameh [battle] was the turning point in restoring [Arab] honor following the defeats of the Arab armies against Israel, which had been established by an international conspiracy upon the ruins of a people which remains alive."
[PA TV (Fatah), March 21, 2011]
4. Demonic images and descriptions of the State of Israel
The Palestinian Authority demonizes Israel through horrific visual images and descriptions, and uses terminology that presents Israel as "the foster child of Nazism," "the organized terror state," "the cruelest enemy," etc...
The following are some examples:
Coordinator of the Prisoners' Committee of the National and Islamic Parties, Yasser Mazhar, on behalf of the Committee:
"Israel is the foster child of Nazism, and a strategic ally of racism, which has disappeared from the world - except for there."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 27, 2010]
Jamal Tamimi, a lecturer in communications at Al-Quds University, responding to the question, Where is Israel is headed?
"To what is beyond Hitlerism, what is beyond fascism, what is beyond Nazism."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 12, 2010]
Senior Fatah member, Marwan Barghouti, serving 5 life sentences in Israel for his involvement in terror activities, in an interview from prison:
"The great Palestinian people - generators of the longest armed revolution in modern history, and proprietors of the two mightiest and greatest Intifadas in the region, facing the cruelest enemy and Zionist settlement colonialism that is unparalleled in the modern history of colonialism..."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2010]
Adel Abed Al-Rahman, columnist in the official PA daily:
"The Israeli apartheid state, possessing no cultural heritage or any collective symbol for a society born from the womb of the Zionist and Western imperialist attack, aspires and exerts efforts to appropriate and take over symbols and elements of the Palestinian national identity. Even when it comes to agricultural produce, such as oranges and other fruits. All this is in order to strengthen its false claims and its fallacious stories to the world and its cultural and scientific institutions... The Israel organized terror state acts vigorously, and on more than one level, to eliminate the Palestinian issue... [Some] pretend not to know that all areas of life are [battle]fields for the conflict with the Zionist movement and with its racist and fascist state."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 19, 2010]
In an announcement published by the PLO Executive Council on the 22nd anniversary of the Palestinian declaration of independence (1988):
"Owing to its policy that is hostile to peace and stability, Israel has become a growing political and moral burden on all of humanity."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 15, 2010]
In an article on the subject of the huge fire in the Carmel Forest last December:
"Israel - whose preparations for destruction and war we hear about daily - is now unable to protect nature, which belongs to [all] mankind. This is a natural outcome for a country whose aim is destruction and ruin of humanity."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 8, 2010]
5. Justice will be achieved when Israel ceases to exist
The Palestinian Authority policy is to present the conflict with Israel as a struggle between Palestinians who are said to be innocent, with justice on their side, and Israel, which is said to be oppressive and cruel, void of legitimate rights. For this reason, the PA objective - having a world without the State of Israel - is not perceived as negative or unjust towards the citizens of Israel. Rather, it is presented as the attainment of historical justice.
A Fatah member of the Palestinian Parliament, Najat Abu-Bakr, stated this explicitly:
"I am certain that the State of Israel - this entity which the world implanted in our body, in our bones and in our history - this is the beginning of the end of this oppressive entity."
[PA TV (Fatah), June 1, 2010]
The same message was conveyed by the narrator on a PA TV program about refugee camps. The narrator addresses the Jews of Israel, asking them to leave - in the name of justice:
"Where are you [Israelis] from? Where are you from? Where are you from? Of course, you're from Ukraine; of course, you're from Germany, from Poland, from Russia, from Ethiopia, the Falasha (pejorative for Ethiopian Jews). Why have you stolen my homeland and taken my place? Please, I ask of you, return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland. This is my homeland; go back to your homeland!"
[PA TV (Fatah), May 4 and 7, 2010]
Conclusions
The call for Jews to leave Israel that was expressed on official PA TV - "Return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland" - exemplifies the basis of the Palestinian Authority ideology, as documented in this report. The PA's logic is:
Since "the Zionist gangs stole Palestine," justice will be attained only when that which was stolen is returned.
Since "recognition of Israel's right to be a state in this region represents an environmental and security hazard," then for the sake of peace, justice demands that the danger be neutralized.
Since "the European and American forces of evil facilitated for them [the Jews] the idea of a 'national home'... with the aim of tearing apart the Arab land, by planting them as an imperialist colonialist enterprise in Arab Palestine," then justice will be achieved only when this "colonialist enterprise" ceases to exist.
Since "Israel is the foster child of Nazism, and a strategic ally of racism, which has disappeared from the world - except for there," then justice demands the removal of the last remnant of Nazism in the world.
This position--that the State of Israel has no right to exist and therefore justice will be attained only with its termination--is a primary component of Palestinian Authority ideology. Today, following the establishment of a Fatah and Hamas unity government, many countries are demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as a condition for the world's recognition of their new government. Ironically, it is this very condition that the Palestinian Authority itself under Mahmoud Abbas violates daily.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
"Peaceful" Palestinian Nakba Rally: "Massacre the Jews Like We Massacred Them in Hebron "
MEMRI Video clip #2929
92-Year-Old Palestinian Woman on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) - May 13, 2011 - 01:32: Palestinians Should Massacre the Jews Like We Massacred Them in Hebron [often called "occupied Palestinian territory" - SL]
Following are excerpts from an interview with Sara Jaber, a 92-year-old Palestinian who participated in a Right of Return demonstration on the Jordanian Israeli border. The interview was aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 13, 2011:
Interviewer: Please tell us who you are.
Sara Jaber: I am from Hebron. The Jaber family.
Interviewer: What is your name?
Sara Jaber: Sara Muhammad 'Awwadh Jaber.
Interviewer: How old are you?
Sara Jaber: I am 92.
Interviewer: So you remember May 15, 1948, the day of the Nakba.
Sara Jaber: Why wouldn't I remember? May Allah support us. I hope we forget those days. Allah willing, you will bury [Israel], and massacre the Jews with your own hands. Allah willing, you will massacre them like we massacred them in Hebron.
Interviewer: What does this day mean to you? You have lived 63 years since the Nakba. You have experienced the entire Nakba...
Sara Jaber: 92 years. That's 92. I lived through the British era, and I lived through the massacre of the Jews in Hebron. We, the people of Hebron, massacred the Jews. My father massacred them, and brought back some stuff...
Interviewer: Thank you very much.
92-Year-Old Palestinian Woman on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) - May 13, 2011 - 01:32: Palestinians Should Massacre the Jews Like We Massacred Them in Hebron [often called "occupied Palestinian territory" - SL]
Following are excerpts from an interview with Sara Jaber, a 92-year-old Palestinian who participated in a Right of Return demonstration on the Jordanian Israeli border. The interview was aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 13, 2011:
Interviewer: Please tell us who you are.
Sara Jaber: I am from Hebron. The Jaber family.
Interviewer: What is your name?
Sara Jaber: Sara Muhammad 'Awwadh Jaber.
Interviewer: How old are you?
Sara Jaber: I am 92.
Interviewer: So you remember May 15, 1948, the day of the Nakba.
Sara Jaber: Why wouldn't I remember? May Allah support us. I hope we forget those days. Allah willing, you will bury [Israel], and massacre the Jews with your own hands. Allah willing, you will massacre them like we massacred them in Hebron.
Interviewer: What does this day mean to you? You have lived 63 years since the Nakba. You have experienced the entire Nakba...
Sara Jaber: 92 years. That's 92. I lived through the British era, and I lived through the massacre of the Jews in Hebron. We, the people of Hebron, massacred the Jews. My father massacred them, and brought back some stuff...
Interviewer: Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)