I watched President Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC. What was stunningly missing was any reference at all to the claimed "right of return", by which the Palestinians demand that the millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great grandchildren of Arab refugees immigrate into Israel. This immigration would end the existence of Israel, and former President Bush openly opposed it. This omission of any reference to the claimed "right of return" allowed the statement by President Obama that he had not changed the policy that went before. But did he?
The letter by then-President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated, in part:
"The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final-status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
If President Obama meant to continue the past policy, then clearly he would have said so. He would have repeated the essence of what President George W. Bush said. But he didn't and refused even to say anything at all about the topic, thereby showing that he reversed President Bush's policy. His refusal to say anything at all on the topic allowed him to claim that there was no change in policy, when actually the Bush policy regarding the "right of return" was reversed by Obama.
But not only was it reversed, Obama's policy is to require the negotiators to discuss the territorial concessions that Israel will make -- and Obama has demanded that Israel meet the fullest territorial concessions demanded by the Palestinians (apart from some minor corrections in the form of swaps of equal value), without simultaneously allowing a negotiation on refugees. This takes away Israel's ability to trade Israeli concessions on territory for Palestinian concessions on the right of return. Obama requires Israel to make the maximum concessions on territory, in advance of the negotiations, by accepting the Armistice Lines as Israel's border as a basis for negotiations before they even begin, and also takes away the possibility of Israel linking it to Palestinian concessions on refugees. These lines would give Israel a width of only 9 miles from the enemy to the sea, and would give Israel indefensible borders, and the risk of being defeated militarily. But this non-linkage by Obama also means that the problem of the Arab refugees would never get solved. Israel cannot risk allowing millions of hostile Arabs immigrating into Israel, causing a civil war, multiplying, and ending the existence of the Jewish state. And by Obama's taking away Israel's negotiating cards, and removing all leverage it could have, the Palestinians would not agree to end their demand for a "right of return". In this way, the casus belli would be maintained, and there could not possibly be peace.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Terms of Surrender
I watched the president speak to AIPAC today, and I heard him set out terms of surrender for Israel to agree to. He spoke about this topic as if he were selling the idea of "surrender now" to an audience of fools and cowards. He told them how powerful the Arab world and the Muslim world was becoming, how numerous the Arabs were becoming in the West Bank, how the acquiring of peace is becoming more and more difficult for Israel because now there is not one autocrat per country to convince but millions of people who will have a voice in the Arab governments (he assumes they will become democracies), and how the other countries of the world were all lining up against Israel. He told them that peace would be a wonderful thing. He told them that if the terms of surrender were not agreed to by Israel now, they would only get more difficult for Israel as time went on. As a good salesman, he said, in effect, buy now, because what is being bought is a wonderful product and later the price will get higher.
He didn't address the question of whether Israel actually has a peace partner. These terms were set down by President Obama days after Mahmoud Abbas announced that Fatah would be partners with Hamas, and would seek to be internationally recognized as a state of Palestine, on 1967 lines (meaning on the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan). Hamas is a terrorist organization, and has been recognized as such by the US State Department. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its charter is judeophobic, calling the Jews responsible for all of the evils of the world for all time, reading as if it were a part of Hitler's Mein Kampf in its slanders of the Jews. Its charter also features a statement saying that in the end of days, the Jews will all be killed; but it doesn't treat this as some sort of allegory, the context of the charter's hostility to the Jews and calls to kill the Jews show that this is offered as support for a genocidal program against the Jews. While Fatah's constitution also calls for the destruction of Israel, and the PLO's charter also calls for the destruction of Israel, Abbas was thought to be a moderate because he kept his distance from Hamas. That is no more, with the Hamas-Fatah partnership. And Hamas brings a religious zeal to their calls for Israel's destruction, appealing to religious reasons for doing so, so they turn the dispute into a religious war, a jihad. Israel is faced with genocidal terrorist jihadists, who are not offering any peace, but only a hudna, a temporary cease fire until they are strong enough militarily to wage warfare.
Israel does not have a peace partner, so it cannot consider terms supposedly of peace, when there isn't going to be any peace.
What President Obama offered is a chance to define the end result of the negotiations, as far as territory is concerned, before the negotiations begin. Then what is the point of the negotiations, when the end result, according to President Obama, would be a return, essentially, to the Armistice Lines of 1949 (which held only until 1967, and he calls them the 1967 lines). Yes, there could be some slight modifications, but only if agreed upon (and the Palestinians are not interested in any modifications), and only with Israel as a supplicant deprived of its negotiating cards, and forced to slice and dice the country to try to get some relief. The Armistice Lines would give Israel a width, for its populous region along the Mediterranean, only 9 miles wide. For the entire Mediterranean coastal region, the average width would hardly be any more than this, roughly around 10 miles average width.
This would be dangerous for Israel. As P. David Hornik pointed out on the blog at www.frontpagemag.com on May 21 (yesterday):
"gravest of all would be Israel's radical strategic vulnerability in the situation envisaged by Obama. Even a Palestinian state that more or less complied with 'nonmilitarization' could allow -- or be forced to allow -- Arab armies from the east to traverse the short distance to Israel's coastal plain, where a mere nine-mile push by tank force would suffice to sunder Israel and put an end to Jewish sovereignty. Would Israel's large, capable army be able to stop the invasion? Very likely not -- because the bulk of that army consists of reserve forces, which require 48 hours for a full mobilization. An Arab force could cross the West Bank in much less time. Meanwhile the reserve forces rushing along exposed arteries to exposed mobilization centers would be subject to various forms of debilitating fire -- very likely including missile barrages from states and terror enclaves bordering Israel."
What is being offered is not peace that Israelis can live with at all. It is a situation that could lead to the direst situation for Israel, even the end of Israel, the end of the Jewish state. The product that Obama is selling is not the peace of life, but the peace of the grave.
Also, Obama has not mentioned the casus beli of the Palestinians, their demand for millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Arab refugees to immigrate into Israel. These would produce a civil war in Israel, and would multiply, and would end the existence of the Jewish state. It is conquest by immigration, which the Arabs have kept as another approach to ending the existence of Israel. Obama would have Israel make suicidal concessions on territory, without calling for negotiations at the same time or earlier on the casus beli, so that having obtained territorial concessions the Palestinians would not see the need to make any concessions on their casus beli. This would preserve the state of war, and the reason for the endless warfare. In effect, this would take away Israel's ability to have any leverage for negotiation. That is why Israel requires that all topics be open for negotiation, not merely the ones that Israel is expected to make concessions on, but also those that clearly require Palestinians concession like the demand for a "right of return" of millions of those claiming to be descendants of Arab refugees. This omission tilts the balance entirely away from Israel and makes it a supplicant at the negotiating table, with everything stacked against it.
There would not be any relenting on the part of the Palestinians in such a situation.
In other words, Obama is setting up conditions for defenseless boundaries leading to the conquest by the sword, plus conditions for massive immigration of millions of hostile Arabs into Israel setting up conditions for conquest by immigration. This is not a good product that Obama is selling, or trying to sell to Israel and to its supporters in America.
He claims that there is nothing different about it from what has gone on in the past. But in the past there were negotiations that were not restricted to Israeli concessions at the start. And to prove that this is a vast change from what came from the previous administration, Obama has so far refused to endorse the letter that then-President George W. Bush sent to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. So much for pretend-continuity., a pretense made to lower resistance to this plan for Israel to take the gravest of risks with an enemy that is tied to genocidal terrorist jihad -- Hamas -- that makes it clear it does not even want to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
Obama spoke to the AIPAC audience as if they were an audience of fools and cowards, telling them that his product is "peace", that it is great, and that the price will go up if Israel doesn't accept it. He told them that countries of the world are getting more hostile to Israel, so Israel has to surrender now or the price will go up. And he will be leaving on a trip abroad, soon. The purpose of this is to get other countries to sign on to his plan, to get them to pile onto Israel, to try to force a surrender of Israel on these very bad terms that would lead to the gravest of risks.
As Netanyahu pointed out, Israel cannot afford to take risks on which the existence of the Jewish state depends. History will not offer the Jews a second chance.
And what about the fate of the more than 500,000 Jews living in land which the Arab ethnic cleansers want to be made judenrein, and who under Obama's plan would find themselves in a foreign country surrounded by genocidal terrorist jihadists?Why hasn't said a word about the situation of these people, including some 300,000 children? This is a plan that is suitable for the dustbin of history.
Obama said that Jerusalem would not be discussed at this time. But his plan would divide Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice Lines, which would leave 200,000 Jews of northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, a sizable chunk of the 500,000 mentioned above, in a new country, with the Temple Mount in a foreign country, and the Western Wall in a foreign country, and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in a foreign country.
Obama said that he wants to give congruity to the new Palestinian state he is seeking to create. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank. That means he wants to take congruity away from Israel, by slicing it and dicing it further, to end Israel's congruity and give congruity to the Palestinian state.
This is not a plan that will in any way benefit Israel, as it promotes war, produces exile and humanitarian crisis for 500,000 Jews targeted for ethnic cleansing, ends the religious rights of Jewish pilgrims to ancient Jewish holy sites, and slices and dices the country -- without even having a peace partner. This is a plan for the dustbin of history, and that is where it deserves to remain. And why is a supposed "progressive" trying to get up an international mob to pressure Israel to accept a reactionary plan that seeks to return to the bad old days of 44 years to 63 years ago, when Israel faced maximum danger and disability, and then make it worse for Israel by slicing and dicing some more?
He didn't address the question of whether Israel actually has a peace partner. These terms were set down by President Obama days after Mahmoud Abbas announced that Fatah would be partners with Hamas, and would seek to be internationally recognized as a state of Palestine, on 1967 lines (meaning on the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan). Hamas is a terrorist organization, and has been recognized as such by the US State Department. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its charter is judeophobic, calling the Jews responsible for all of the evils of the world for all time, reading as if it were a part of Hitler's Mein Kampf in its slanders of the Jews. Its charter also features a statement saying that in the end of days, the Jews will all be killed; but it doesn't treat this as some sort of allegory, the context of the charter's hostility to the Jews and calls to kill the Jews show that this is offered as support for a genocidal program against the Jews. While Fatah's constitution also calls for the destruction of Israel, and the PLO's charter also calls for the destruction of Israel, Abbas was thought to be a moderate because he kept his distance from Hamas. That is no more, with the Hamas-Fatah partnership. And Hamas brings a religious zeal to their calls for Israel's destruction, appealing to religious reasons for doing so, so they turn the dispute into a religious war, a jihad. Israel is faced with genocidal terrorist jihadists, who are not offering any peace, but only a hudna, a temporary cease fire until they are strong enough militarily to wage warfare.
Israel does not have a peace partner, so it cannot consider terms supposedly of peace, when there isn't going to be any peace.
What President Obama offered is a chance to define the end result of the negotiations, as far as territory is concerned, before the negotiations begin. Then what is the point of the negotiations, when the end result, according to President Obama, would be a return, essentially, to the Armistice Lines of 1949 (which held only until 1967, and he calls them the 1967 lines). Yes, there could be some slight modifications, but only if agreed upon (and the Palestinians are not interested in any modifications), and only with Israel as a supplicant deprived of its negotiating cards, and forced to slice and dice the country to try to get some relief. The Armistice Lines would give Israel a width, for its populous region along the Mediterranean, only 9 miles wide. For the entire Mediterranean coastal region, the average width would hardly be any more than this, roughly around 10 miles average width.
This would be dangerous for Israel. As P. David Hornik pointed out on the blog at www.frontpagemag.com on May 21 (yesterday):
"gravest of all would be Israel's radical strategic vulnerability in the situation envisaged by Obama. Even a Palestinian state that more or less complied with 'nonmilitarization' could allow -- or be forced to allow -- Arab armies from the east to traverse the short distance to Israel's coastal plain, where a mere nine-mile push by tank force would suffice to sunder Israel and put an end to Jewish sovereignty. Would Israel's large, capable army be able to stop the invasion? Very likely not -- because the bulk of that army consists of reserve forces, which require 48 hours for a full mobilization. An Arab force could cross the West Bank in much less time. Meanwhile the reserve forces rushing along exposed arteries to exposed mobilization centers would be subject to various forms of debilitating fire -- very likely including missile barrages from states and terror enclaves bordering Israel."
What is being offered is not peace that Israelis can live with at all. It is a situation that could lead to the direst situation for Israel, even the end of Israel, the end of the Jewish state. The product that Obama is selling is not the peace of life, but the peace of the grave.
Also, Obama has not mentioned the casus beli of the Palestinians, their demand for millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Arab refugees to immigrate into Israel. These would produce a civil war in Israel, and would multiply, and would end the existence of the Jewish state. It is conquest by immigration, which the Arabs have kept as another approach to ending the existence of Israel. Obama would have Israel make suicidal concessions on territory, without calling for negotiations at the same time or earlier on the casus beli, so that having obtained territorial concessions the Palestinians would not see the need to make any concessions on their casus beli. This would preserve the state of war, and the reason for the endless warfare. In effect, this would take away Israel's ability to have any leverage for negotiation. That is why Israel requires that all topics be open for negotiation, not merely the ones that Israel is expected to make concessions on, but also those that clearly require Palestinians concession like the demand for a "right of return" of millions of those claiming to be descendants of Arab refugees. This omission tilts the balance entirely away from Israel and makes it a supplicant at the negotiating table, with everything stacked against it.
There would not be any relenting on the part of the Palestinians in such a situation.
In other words, Obama is setting up conditions for defenseless boundaries leading to the conquest by the sword, plus conditions for massive immigration of millions of hostile Arabs into Israel setting up conditions for conquest by immigration. This is not a good product that Obama is selling, or trying to sell to Israel and to its supporters in America.
He claims that there is nothing different about it from what has gone on in the past. But in the past there were negotiations that were not restricted to Israeli concessions at the start. And to prove that this is a vast change from what came from the previous administration, Obama has so far refused to endorse the letter that then-President George W. Bush sent to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. So much for pretend-continuity., a pretense made to lower resistance to this plan for Israel to take the gravest of risks with an enemy that is tied to genocidal terrorist jihad -- Hamas -- that makes it clear it does not even want to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
Obama spoke to the AIPAC audience as if they were an audience of fools and cowards, telling them that his product is "peace", that it is great, and that the price will go up if Israel doesn't accept it. He told them that countries of the world are getting more hostile to Israel, so Israel has to surrender now or the price will go up. And he will be leaving on a trip abroad, soon. The purpose of this is to get other countries to sign on to his plan, to get them to pile onto Israel, to try to force a surrender of Israel on these very bad terms that would lead to the gravest of risks.
As Netanyahu pointed out, Israel cannot afford to take risks on which the existence of the Jewish state depends. History will not offer the Jews a second chance.
And what about the fate of the more than 500,000 Jews living in land which the Arab ethnic cleansers want to be made judenrein, and who under Obama's plan would find themselves in a foreign country surrounded by genocidal terrorist jihadists?Why hasn't said a word about the situation of these people, including some 300,000 children? This is a plan that is suitable for the dustbin of history.
Obama said that Jerusalem would not be discussed at this time. But his plan would divide Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice Lines, which would leave 200,000 Jews of northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, a sizable chunk of the 500,000 mentioned above, in a new country, with the Temple Mount in a foreign country, and the Western Wall in a foreign country, and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in a foreign country.
Obama said that he wants to give congruity to the new Palestinian state he is seeking to create. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank. That means he wants to take congruity away from Israel, by slicing it and dicing it further, to end Israel's congruity and give congruity to the Palestinian state.
This is not a plan that will in any way benefit Israel, as it promotes war, produces exile and humanitarian crisis for 500,000 Jews targeted for ethnic cleansing, ends the religious rights of Jewish pilgrims to ancient Jewish holy sites, and slices and dices the country -- without even having a peace partner. This is a plan for the dustbin of history, and that is where it deserves to remain. And why is a supposed "progressive" trying to get up an international mob to pressure Israel to accept a reactionary plan that seeks to return to the bad old days of 44 years to 63 years ago, when Israel faced maximum danger and disability, and then make it worse for Israel by slicing and dicing some more?
Friday, May 20, 2011
dropping the mask?
The position of Israel regarding drawing a map is that too much is at stake to risk its security, so its borders have to be defensible. The position of the Palestinians is that, apart from some minor and mutually agreeable swaps, the boundaries of Israel would be those of the 1949 Armistice Lines drawn between Israeli forces and the forces of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That's what they mean by the "1967 lines" when in reality there were never any lines agreed upon for mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian Arab state. President Barack Hussein Obama came down fully on the side of the Palestinian territorial demands, and threw away Israel's needs for secure boundaries.
This is contrary to the wishes of most Americans, who generally side with Israel rather than the Hamas and Fatah terrorists seeking to put Israel in indefensible borders. Nevertheless, Obama is a True Believer in making the maximum possible gift to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist partnership, and he doesn't really care one iota that the gift he wants to give will come at the expense of Israel's security.
The return to the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement would give Israel a width of only about 9 miles. There have been attempts to slice Israel, and a return to those lines would be a constant temptation to continue such efforts. It is not possible for Israelis to agree to such a suicidal plan. For it to be the basis of negotiations would be to bias the negotiations so that Israel appears as a supplicant that has lost all of its negotiating cards. This tilting of the negotiations seems to be the main objective of President Barack Hussein Obama, because he has also not mentioned resolving the Casus Beli of the Palestinian Arabs, which is their demand for millions of hostile Arabs to flood into Israel. This is a no brainer for anybody who understands the consequences of such a flood of hostile immigration: there would be a civil war, the millions of hostile Arabs would multiply, and the result would be the death of the Jewish state.
So the mask has been dropped. Mr. Obama has given his endorsement, essentially, to preparing the way for the jihad of the sword, while keeping his silence and thereby giving his tacit approval of the jihad of immigration and the jihad of the womb.
In addition, he has called for a contiguous Palestinian state, which would come at the expense of Israel's contiguity. There is no land connection between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. To provide one would split Israel, which apparently is what he wants to do. Also, he said that Egypt and Jordan would be borders of the Palestinian state, but he only mentioned that Israel would border Palestine. Therefore, he envisions Israel giving up its vital presence, both in terms of population and in terms of soldiers, at the River Jordan, to prevent an infiltration of rockets, missiles, mujahadeen, and even an invasion of tanks. So he has given formulas for dicing and slicing Israel, while not addressing the Casus Beli, and not providing any situation that would allow for Palestinian concessions, nor for Israeli security (except of meaningless words that he is all for Israel's security while giving formulas to gravely harm Israel's security and means of defending its borders and its population.
Obama has thrown away the promises made to Israel by the previous administration, the administration of President George W. Bush, that Israel would not return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, that a solution to the Arab refugee problem would be found outside the boundaries of Israel, and that the major settlement blocs that have formed during the demographic changes that took place over the last 44 years would be part of Israel while other settlements would be part of the negotiation.
Territorially, he has not allowed any daylight between his position and the position of the Palestinian Arabs, and of course by doing this he is encouraging countries and groups and individuals around the world to support that position and put pressure on Israel. Might this be fairly described as his portraying himself as a mentor and leader and agent of the Palestinian Arabs? He did this with his advocacy of the Palestinian Arab desire to have 500,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem to be deprived of their property rights and of their right to pursue their needs by building for their needs just as all people in the world are able to do. The result of that was that the Palestinian Arabs ratcheted up their demands, and refused to negotiate until Israel met the demands of Obama. Now he has escalated his diplomatic assault on Israel by ignoring Israel's needs, and calling for the basis of negotiations to be the Arab demand for Israel to return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, and the result of this of course will be a new ratcheting up of Palestinian demands. This is not rocket science. The more Obama escalates his demands on Israel, the more other countries will follow his lead, and even go further since they cannot be seen to be less "pro-Palestinian" than the US, and the more the Palestinian Arabs will escalate their own demands. For how can the Palestinians be less pro-Palestinian than the US?
Do you remember the antics of Milton Berle on TV, when his audience gave him applause? With one arm he would hold up a hand to say "stop", and with the other arm he would enthusiastically wave his hand to encourage the applause to continue. He would send out this mixed message, and it would be funny to see. Mr. Obama does the same thing. He raised the demand of stopping Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem from building -- anything -- to deprive them of their property rights and to take away their right to build for their needs. He said it was illegal for Jews to be doing building, in lands that had been conquered and occupied from 1948 to 1967 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The Palestinian Arabs took up his demands, and so did the international community. But when countries brought their demand to declare the settlements illegal to the UN Security Council, he did two things, a la Milton Berle. He vetoed their intended resolution at the UN Security Council, while simultaneously he had his ambassador vigorously denounce any building by Jews in the failed 1948-1967 Jordanian jihad territory as illegal.
It seems that he might be contemplating another such Milton Berle two-armed mixed message. His wants Israel to return to the "Auschwitz lines" (as Abba Eban eloquently called them) of 1949 and made a speech to give it much publicity. But he has indicated that when the matter comes to the UN Security Council he will veto it. If he follows through with Milton Berle, he will also have his ambassador give another speech supporting such a return to the Auschwitz lines.
It appears that Obama supports the goals of the ethnic cleansers, but wants to be on record as opposing their methods. And his Milton Berle antics of encouraging other countries to pressure Israel while he vetoes their efforts at the UN Security Council are his method of "leading from behind", to get other countries to do his dirtiest work of putting pressure on Israel while he claims innocence-per-veto.
This is contrary to the wishes of most Americans, who generally side with Israel rather than the Hamas and Fatah terrorists seeking to put Israel in indefensible borders. Nevertheless, Obama is a True Believer in making the maximum possible gift to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist partnership, and he doesn't really care one iota that the gift he wants to give will come at the expense of Israel's security.
The return to the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement would give Israel a width of only about 9 miles. There have been attempts to slice Israel, and a return to those lines would be a constant temptation to continue such efforts. It is not possible for Israelis to agree to such a suicidal plan. For it to be the basis of negotiations would be to bias the negotiations so that Israel appears as a supplicant that has lost all of its negotiating cards. This tilting of the negotiations seems to be the main objective of President Barack Hussein Obama, because he has also not mentioned resolving the Casus Beli of the Palestinian Arabs, which is their demand for millions of hostile Arabs to flood into Israel. This is a no brainer for anybody who understands the consequences of such a flood of hostile immigration: there would be a civil war, the millions of hostile Arabs would multiply, and the result would be the death of the Jewish state.
So the mask has been dropped. Mr. Obama has given his endorsement, essentially, to preparing the way for the jihad of the sword, while keeping his silence and thereby giving his tacit approval of the jihad of immigration and the jihad of the womb.
In addition, he has called for a contiguous Palestinian state, which would come at the expense of Israel's contiguity. There is no land connection between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. To provide one would split Israel, which apparently is what he wants to do. Also, he said that Egypt and Jordan would be borders of the Palestinian state, but he only mentioned that Israel would border Palestine. Therefore, he envisions Israel giving up its vital presence, both in terms of population and in terms of soldiers, at the River Jordan, to prevent an infiltration of rockets, missiles, mujahadeen, and even an invasion of tanks. So he has given formulas for dicing and slicing Israel, while not addressing the Casus Beli, and not providing any situation that would allow for Palestinian concessions, nor for Israeli security (except of meaningless words that he is all for Israel's security while giving formulas to gravely harm Israel's security and means of defending its borders and its population.
Obama has thrown away the promises made to Israel by the previous administration, the administration of President George W. Bush, that Israel would not return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, that a solution to the Arab refugee problem would be found outside the boundaries of Israel, and that the major settlement blocs that have formed during the demographic changes that took place over the last 44 years would be part of Israel while other settlements would be part of the negotiation.
Territorially, he has not allowed any daylight between his position and the position of the Palestinian Arabs, and of course by doing this he is encouraging countries and groups and individuals around the world to support that position and put pressure on Israel. Might this be fairly described as his portraying himself as a mentor and leader and agent of the Palestinian Arabs? He did this with his advocacy of the Palestinian Arab desire to have 500,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem to be deprived of their property rights and of their right to pursue their needs by building for their needs just as all people in the world are able to do. The result of that was that the Palestinian Arabs ratcheted up their demands, and refused to negotiate until Israel met the demands of Obama. Now he has escalated his diplomatic assault on Israel by ignoring Israel's needs, and calling for the basis of negotiations to be the Arab demand for Israel to return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, and the result of this of course will be a new ratcheting up of Palestinian demands. This is not rocket science. The more Obama escalates his demands on Israel, the more other countries will follow his lead, and even go further since they cannot be seen to be less "pro-Palestinian" than the US, and the more the Palestinian Arabs will escalate their own demands. For how can the Palestinians be less pro-Palestinian than the US?
Do you remember the antics of Milton Berle on TV, when his audience gave him applause? With one arm he would hold up a hand to say "stop", and with the other arm he would enthusiastically wave his hand to encourage the applause to continue. He would send out this mixed message, and it would be funny to see. Mr. Obama does the same thing. He raised the demand of stopping Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem from building -- anything -- to deprive them of their property rights and to take away their right to build for their needs. He said it was illegal for Jews to be doing building, in lands that had been conquered and occupied from 1948 to 1967 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The Palestinian Arabs took up his demands, and so did the international community. But when countries brought their demand to declare the settlements illegal to the UN Security Council, he did two things, a la Milton Berle. He vetoed their intended resolution at the UN Security Council, while simultaneously he had his ambassador vigorously denounce any building by Jews in the failed 1948-1967 Jordanian jihad territory as illegal.
It seems that he might be contemplating another such Milton Berle two-armed mixed message. His wants Israel to return to the "Auschwitz lines" (as Abba Eban eloquently called them) of 1949 and made a speech to give it much publicity. But he has indicated that when the matter comes to the UN Security Council he will veto it. If he follows through with Milton Berle, he will also have his ambassador give another speech supporting such a return to the Auschwitz lines.
It appears that Obama supports the goals of the ethnic cleansers, but wants to be on record as opposing their methods. And his Milton Berle antics of encouraging other countries to pressure Israel while he vetoes their efforts at the UN Security Council are his method of "leading from behind", to get other countries to do his dirtiest work of putting pressure on Israel while he claims innocence-per-veto.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Mahmoud Abbas' legacy and the PLO's June 8 1974 Ten Points for War
The leader of the PLO and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was born in 1935. He is 76 years old at this time, he has some issues involving his heart, and he has taken Jordanian citizenship. He will not run for president in the coming Palestinian elections, he said. Soon he will be bowing out of leadership of Palestinian politics, and he is anxious to leave a legacy in accordance with the PLO's June 8, 1974 Ten Points for War.
In the book Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter, there is the documentation of this important strategic plan produced in 1974 by the deliberative body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council. You can see how Abbas' recent actions show his adherence to this strategic plan. The timing of his actions show that he intends for this to be his legacy.
Davis & Decter: On June 8, 1974, the Palestine National Council met in Cairo to draft the political principles to be followed by the PLO. Following is the text of the Ten Point Program (in italics) interspersed with comments.
Preamble:
Proceeding from the Palestinian National Charter and the PLO's political program which was approved during the 11th session of the PNC held from 3 to 12 January 1973, believing in the impossibility of the establishment of a durable and just peace in the area without the restoration to our Palestinian people of all their national rights, foremost of which is their right to return to and determine their fate on all their national soil, and in the light of the study of the political circumstances which arose during the period between the Council's previous and current sessions, the Council decides the following:
Davis & Decter: Note the use of the word all -- "all their national soil"...
The Ten Points
1. The assertion of the PLO position regarding Resolution 242 is that it obliterates the patriotic and national rights of our people and deals with our people's cause as a refugee problem. Therefore, dealing with this resolution on this basis is rejected on any level of Arab and international dealings, including the Geneva conference.
Davis & Decter: The PLO has always rejected Security Council Resolution 242...
2. The PLO will struggle by all means, foremost of which is armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian land and to establish the people's national, independent and fighting authority on every part of Palestinian land to be liberated. This necessitates making more changes in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle.
3. The PLO will struggle against any plan for the establishment of a Palestinian entity, the price of which is recognition, conciliation, secure borders, renunciation of the national right, and our people's deprivation of their right to return and their right to determine the fate of their national soil.
Davis & Decter: Articles 2 and 3 are the heart of the document. The PLO is determined to continue the armed struggle to liberate every part of the "Palestinian land" -- a threat to both Israel and Jordan.
...
5. To struggle with the Jordanian national forces for the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian national front whose aim is the establishment of a national democratic government in Jordan -- a government that will cohere with the Palestinian entity to be established as a result of the struggle.
Davis & Decter: The PLO swears not only to liquidate Israel but also to overthrow King Hussein. The Council debated this article language for 10 days...
...
8. The Palestinian national authority, after its establishment, will struggle for the unity of the confrontation states for the sake of completing the liberation of all Palestinian soil and as a step on the path of comprehensive Arab unity.
...
My comments: Article 3 shines a light on what is necessary for an actual peace, and not merely a piece of paper.
Recognition: The Palestinians need to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state in their national ancestral homeland, The State of Israel, and to recognize its right to exist. This requires not only a pretense and delusionary statements by the international community that the Palestinians have in effect given this recognition (with smoke and mirrors), but to explicitly teach this continually to Palestinian Arab schoolchildren for two or three generations, so that the Palestinian Arab population becomes denazified. This includes the cooperation of Fatah and Hamas in giving this recognition and implementing the re-education of Palestinian Arab schoolchildren, as well as the other terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as the individuals constituting the leadership of the Palestinians. Also, there can be none of the "hat trick" nonsense, with individuals stating that they agreed to recognition while wearing the Palestinian Authority hat, but not as individuals, and not wearing the hat of Fatah or Hamas etc.
Conciliation: There has to be a real conciliation, a sulh, and not merely a hudna (a pause in hostilities), and not merely a salaam ( peace without conciliation).
Secure borders: Israel has to have secure borders, because whatever "peace" arrangements are made can fail. This includes a military presence by Israel along the Jordan River, to interrupt the flow of weapons and mujahadeen into an armed hostile Palestinian entity.
Demilitarized Palestinian entity: The "peace" arrangements can fail, and air travelers to Israel's airport should not be fired upon while in flight or while landing or taking off. Not providing for, and enforcing demilitarization of a Palestinian entity would be very reckless, and would be disregarding the right to life of residents and visitors to Israel.
No "right of return" of Arabs who have never set foot on the land that they are claiming: This is just a way of flooding Israel with millions of hostile Arabs, radicalized for generations in refugee camps, and raised to make war against Israelis. They will cause a civil war in Israel, and they will multiply and quickly end the Jewish state. This is the jihad of the womb, which is another means of seeking to destroy the Jewish state.
Jewish rights in the Jewish national soil cannot be disregarded -- it is not up to the Palestinians to remove these rights and give all rights to themselves. In addition, there are rights of religious pilgrims, of people of all faiths who have holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and these rights cannot be torn up, but must be honored by whoever is in charge.
In the book Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter, there is the documentation of this important strategic plan produced in 1974 by the deliberative body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council. You can see how Abbas' recent actions show his adherence to this strategic plan. The timing of his actions show that he intends for this to be his legacy.
Davis & Decter: On June 8, 1974, the Palestine National Council met in Cairo to draft the political principles to be followed by the PLO. Following is the text of the Ten Point Program (in italics) interspersed with comments.
Preamble:
Proceeding from the Palestinian National Charter and the PLO's political program which was approved during the 11th session of the PNC held from 3 to 12 January 1973, believing in the impossibility of the establishment of a durable and just peace in the area without the restoration to our Palestinian people of all their national rights, foremost of which is their right to return to and determine their fate on all their national soil, and in the light of the study of the political circumstances which arose during the period between the Council's previous and current sessions, the Council decides the following:
Davis & Decter: Note the use of the word all -- "all their national soil"...
The Ten Points
1. The assertion of the PLO position regarding Resolution 242 is that it obliterates the patriotic and national rights of our people and deals with our people's cause as a refugee problem. Therefore, dealing with this resolution on this basis is rejected on any level of Arab and international dealings, including the Geneva conference.
Davis & Decter: The PLO has always rejected Security Council Resolution 242...
2. The PLO will struggle by all means, foremost of which is armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian land and to establish the people's national, independent and fighting authority on every part of Palestinian land to be liberated. This necessitates making more changes in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle.
3. The PLO will struggle against any plan for the establishment of a Palestinian entity, the price of which is recognition, conciliation, secure borders, renunciation of the national right, and our people's deprivation of their right to return and their right to determine the fate of their national soil.
Davis & Decter: Articles 2 and 3 are the heart of the document. The PLO is determined to continue the armed struggle to liberate every part of the "Palestinian land" -- a threat to both Israel and Jordan.
...
5. To struggle with the Jordanian national forces for the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian national front whose aim is the establishment of a national democratic government in Jordan -- a government that will cohere with the Palestinian entity to be established as a result of the struggle.
Davis & Decter: The PLO swears not only to liquidate Israel but also to overthrow King Hussein. The Council debated this article language for 10 days...
...
8. The Palestinian national authority, after its establishment, will struggle for the unity of the confrontation states for the sake of completing the liberation of all Palestinian soil and as a step on the path of comprehensive Arab unity.
...
My comments: Article 3 shines a light on what is necessary for an actual peace, and not merely a piece of paper.
Recognition: The Palestinians need to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state in their national ancestral homeland, The State of Israel, and to recognize its right to exist. This requires not only a pretense and delusionary statements by the international community that the Palestinians have in effect given this recognition (with smoke and mirrors), but to explicitly teach this continually to Palestinian Arab schoolchildren for two or three generations, so that the Palestinian Arab population becomes denazified. This includes the cooperation of Fatah and Hamas in giving this recognition and implementing the re-education of Palestinian Arab schoolchildren, as well as the other terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as the individuals constituting the leadership of the Palestinians. Also, there can be none of the "hat trick" nonsense, with individuals stating that they agreed to recognition while wearing the Palestinian Authority hat, but not as individuals, and not wearing the hat of Fatah or Hamas etc.
Conciliation: There has to be a real conciliation, a sulh, and not merely a hudna (a pause in hostilities), and not merely a salaam ( peace without conciliation).
Secure borders: Israel has to have secure borders, because whatever "peace" arrangements are made can fail. This includes a military presence by Israel along the Jordan River, to interrupt the flow of weapons and mujahadeen into an armed hostile Palestinian entity.
Demilitarized Palestinian entity: The "peace" arrangements can fail, and air travelers to Israel's airport should not be fired upon while in flight or while landing or taking off. Not providing for, and enforcing demilitarization of a Palestinian entity would be very reckless, and would be disregarding the right to life of residents and visitors to Israel.
No "right of return" of Arabs who have never set foot on the land that they are claiming: This is just a way of flooding Israel with millions of hostile Arabs, radicalized for generations in refugee camps, and raised to make war against Israelis. They will cause a civil war in Israel, and they will multiply and quickly end the Jewish state. This is the jihad of the womb, which is another means of seeking to destroy the Jewish state.
Jewish rights in the Jewish national soil cannot be disregarded -- it is not up to the Palestinians to remove these rights and give all rights to themselves. In addition, there are rights of religious pilgrims, of people of all faiths who have holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and these rights cannot be torn up, but must be honored by whoever is in charge.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Are proposed disabilities Nuremberg Lite law or is this Dhimmitude law?
The leader of the Fatah Palestinians, Mahmoud Abbas, insists that Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem be denied the right to build for their needs. On the one hand, this reminds me of earlier efforts, during the 20th century, to deprive Jews of their rights, which was carried out under the Nuremberg laws.
Here is part of a Wikipedia article on the Nuremberg laws that the Nazis enacted.
"The Nuremberg Laws or Nürnberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. After the takeover of power in 1933 by Hitler, Nazism became an official ideology incorporating scientific racism and antisemitism. There was a rapid growth in German legislation directed at Jews.
The lack of a clear legal method of defining who was Jewish had, however, allowed some Jews to escape some forms of discrimination aimed at them. The enactment of laws identifying who was Jewish made it easier for the Nazis to enforce legislation restricting the basic rights of German Jews.
The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as "German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of "mixed blood".[1] These laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans.[2]
The Nuremberg Laws also included a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as "Jews" and non-Jewish Germans and prevented "Jews" from participating in German civic life. These laws were, to some extent, an attempt to return the Jews of 20th century Germany to the position that Jews had held before their emancipation in the 19th century.
The laws were a legal embodiment of an already existing anti-Jewish boycott movement. See Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses."
Today, there is an anti-Jewish boycott movement, known as the BDS movement, which is carried out by antisemites throughout the world, and is directed against the Jewish state.
In areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority, it is against the law for Jews to buy or rent property. Abbas has stated many times that no Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state under his control.In areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, it is a capital offense to sell land to a Jew -- somebody convicted of selling land to a Jew is subject to the death penalty.
Abbas' demand that the Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and even in Israel's capital city in the northern, southern, and eastern parts of the city, not be permitted to build can be viewed as a continuation, in a lighter way, of the Nuremberg laws that the Nazis enacted. For example, while an Arab living in Jerusalem can exercise his property rights, according to Abbas a Jew may not. If Jews are living in an area that was conquered and occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan from 1948-1967, Abbas wants the Jews to not be permitted to build any extensions to their homes, not to build playgrounds for the kids, not to build prompt care medical facilities for their children, not to build any kindergardens or classrooms of any kind, not to build any security facilities such as fences or bomb shelters, not to be able to build anything at all that they need.
In a different analogy, it's as if he wants the Jews to be living in dhimmitude, with their rights and freedoms limited as if they were conquered by the Palestinian Arab Muslims. In that analogy, the jizya payment corresponds to the demand that Israel do revenue-sharing with the hostile regime, which soon will be a Hamas-Fatah regime. The humiliation that accompanies dhimmitude will come from the UN. And best of all from Abbas' point of view, none of the dhimmitude will be imposed by a conquering force, but will be done voluntarily by the Jews' own government, according to the demands of Abbas. Self-imposed dhimmitude.
Some of the humiliation specific to this may have already begun. For example, President Barack Hussein Obama has already declared that it is illegal for Jews to build anything at all in lands that were conquered and occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan from 1948 to 1967. What is the precedent for this? Is it Nuremberg Lite, or is it Dhimmitude?
This is very different from domestic law, which has to actually be passed by Congress. For international law, it's different, it doesn't have to be legislation actually passed by a body elected by the governed. Apparently you just have to say "it's international law", and presto, it's law. That's what Obama did -- he proclaimed it to be international law, citing nothing at all.
This seems to be Obama's giving his retroactive blessing to the defunct 1948-1967 occupation by Transjordan (which renamed itself Jordan after this conquest), and the defunct expulsion of the Jews by Jordan after some Jordanian massacres (e.g, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem). That exile ended, but can it be that in the mind of Obama, that horror, in which the Jews were forced into exile and were banned from their ancestral homeland in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, and had their synagogues destroyed, and holy gravestones turned into latrines for the Jordanian forces, can have a rebirth of sorts through this proposed imposition of disabilities on the Jews? And the remarkable thing is that it won't be forced upon the Jews by foreigners, but it is supposed to be forced upon the Jews by their own government of Israel.
Is this a version of Nuremberg Lite law, or is it a version of the law of Dhimmitude?
Here is part of a Wikipedia article on the Nuremberg laws that the Nazis enacted.
"The Nuremberg Laws or Nürnberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. After the takeover of power in 1933 by Hitler, Nazism became an official ideology incorporating scientific racism and antisemitism. There was a rapid growth in German legislation directed at Jews.
The lack of a clear legal method of defining who was Jewish had, however, allowed some Jews to escape some forms of discrimination aimed at them. The enactment of laws identifying who was Jewish made it easier for the Nazis to enforce legislation restricting the basic rights of German Jews.
The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as "German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of "mixed blood".[1] These laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans.[2]
The Nuremberg Laws also included a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as "Jews" and non-Jewish Germans and prevented "Jews" from participating in German civic life. These laws were, to some extent, an attempt to return the Jews of 20th century Germany to the position that Jews had held before their emancipation in the 19th century.
The laws were a legal embodiment of an already existing anti-Jewish boycott movement. See Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses."
Today, there is an anti-Jewish boycott movement, known as the BDS movement, which is carried out by antisemites throughout the world, and is directed against the Jewish state.
In areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority, it is against the law for Jews to buy or rent property. Abbas has stated many times that no Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state under his control.In areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, it is a capital offense to sell land to a Jew -- somebody convicted of selling land to a Jew is subject to the death penalty.
Abbas' demand that the Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and even in Israel's capital city in the northern, southern, and eastern parts of the city, not be permitted to build can be viewed as a continuation, in a lighter way, of the Nuremberg laws that the Nazis enacted. For example, while an Arab living in Jerusalem can exercise his property rights, according to Abbas a Jew may not. If Jews are living in an area that was conquered and occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan from 1948-1967, Abbas wants the Jews to not be permitted to build any extensions to their homes, not to build playgrounds for the kids, not to build prompt care medical facilities for their children, not to build any kindergardens or classrooms of any kind, not to build any security facilities such as fences or bomb shelters, not to be able to build anything at all that they need.
In a different analogy, it's as if he wants the Jews to be living in dhimmitude, with their rights and freedoms limited as if they were conquered by the Palestinian Arab Muslims. In that analogy, the jizya payment corresponds to the demand that Israel do revenue-sharing with the hostile regime, which soon will be a Hamas-Fatah regime. The humiliation that accompanies dhimmitude will come from the UN. And best of all from Abbas' point of view, none of the dhimmitude will be imposed by a conquering force, but will be done voluntarily by the Jews' own government, according to the demands of Abbas. Self-imposed dhimmitude.
Some of the humiliation specific to this may have already begun. For example, President Barack Hussein Obama has already declared that it is illegal for Jews to build anything at all in lands that were conquered and occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan from 1948 to 1967. What is the precedent for this? Is it Nuremberg Lite, or is it Dhimmitude?
This is very different from domestic law, which has to actually be passed by Congress. For international law, it's different, it doesn't have to be legislation actually passed by a body elected by the governed. Apparently you just have to say "it's international law", and presto, it's law. That's what Obama did -- he proclaimed it to be international law, citing nothing at all.
This seems to be Obama's giving his retroactive blessing to the defunct 1948-1967 occupation by Transjordan (which renamed itself Jordan after this conquest), and the defunct expulsion of the Jews by Jordan after some Jordanian massacres (e.g, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem). That exile ended, but can it be that in the mind of Obama, that horror, in which the Jews were forced into exile and were banned from their ancestral homeland in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, and had their synagogues destroyed, and holy gravestones turned into latrines for the Jordanian forces, can have a rebirth of sorts through this proposed imposition of disabilities on the Jews? And the remarkable thing is that it won't be forced upon the Jews by foreigners, but it is supposed to be forced upon the Jews by their own government of Israel.
Is this a version of Nuremberg Lite law, or is it a version of the law of Dhimmitude?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Arab leaders urged Palestinians to leave
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article recently that was published as an op-ed piece by The New York Times. One of his distortions was that he neglected to point out that Israel accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab states did not, and the Palestinian leadership did not. After the British pull-out from the land, Israel declared itself an independent state, and the Arab League states declared war on Israel and threatened genocide. The media today do not mention that May 15, the Naqba Day, is the anniversary of the Arab League's threat of genocide: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Arab League Sec. Gen. Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel. [Source: Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter.]
To facilitate this genocide, without causing casualties among the Palestinians, the Arab leaders urged Palestinians to leave.
The organization Stand With Us has provided a collection of quotations from Arab and independent sources documenting that Arab leaders urged Palestinian Arabs to leave, which can be found at:
http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/biglies06.pdf
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."--- Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948 (sae appeared in The London Telegraph, August 1948).
"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." -- London Economist October 2, 1948.
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." -- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949.
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948 (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." -- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25.
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war." -- General John Glubb [commander of the invading military forces from the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan], The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948.
...
"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." -- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.
Source of above quotes: BIG LIES: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-Levi.
Read the rest. One quote is especially illuminating, because it comes from Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) himself, whose op-ed in The New York Times suggests that he seems to have forgotten or deliberately omitted what he said earlier. "Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" (Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2003): "Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: 'The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zioinist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe."
Source: BIG LIES: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-Levi.
To facilitate this genocide, without causing casualties among the Palestinians, the Arab leaders urged Palestinians to leave.
The organization Stand With Us has provided a collection of quotations from Arab and independent sources documenting that Arab leaders urged Palestinian Arabs to leave, which can be found at:
http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/biglies06.pdf
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."--- Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948 (sae appeared in The London Telegraph, August 1948).
"The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." -- London Economist October 2, 1948.
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." -- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949.
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948 (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." -- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25.
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war." -- General John Glubb [commander of the invading military forces from the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan], The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948.
...
"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." -- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.
Source of above quotes: BIG LIES: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-Levi.
Read the rest. One quote is especially illuminating, because it comes from Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) himself, whose op-ed in The New York Times suggests that he seems to have forgotten or deliberately omitted what he said earlier. "Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" (Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2003): "Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: 'The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zioinist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe."
Source: BIG LIES: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel, by David Meir-Levi.
Monday, May 16, 2011
what peace means for Israel
On Feb. 11, 1980, Mahmud Abbas' mentor, then PLO-Chairman Yasir Arafat, explained to the Caracas, Venezuela newspaper El Mundo what peace means to him and his cohorts: "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations."
Likewise, the Fatah constitution calls for the destruction of Israel.
.
Similarly, Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. For Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, peace means the end of the Dar al Harb, and the entire world becomes the Dar al Islam with everyone ruled by Sharia. There is no place in Hamas' concept of "peace" for the existence of Israel, and they have shown by their terrorist actions in bombing buses full of women shopping during the holidays that they are genocidal. They quote their scripture calling for genocide against the Jews, and their actions show that they mean it.
Recently, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu explained what peace means to Israel, giving a vision of peace held by a majority of Israelis. The requirements for peace, according to the Israelis, are:
1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jews.
2. Any peace agreement with the Palestinians should end the conflict and all future Palestinian claims on land.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders. No Arab refugees in Israeli territory.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized, and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel's security. This must include a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
5. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel. Jerusalem will remain the united, undivided capital of Israel.
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu also said that the majority of Israeli were united in their belief that Israel's borders must be defended, that the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan must be kept intact, and Iran's nuclear weapons program must be kept in check.
The reasons for these should be obvious.
First, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. This is the first step toward ending the hatred and judeophobic incitement that has been going on among the Palestinians, as well as in the Arab world, and as well in the Muslim world, for a long time. Their leaders have spread the lie that the Jews have no historic connection with the Land of Israel. They have spread the lie that there is no Jewish people. Although international bodies have long called for a Jewish state, the leaders of the Palestinians have sought to abort the present Jewish state, and to even pretend that a Jewish state doesn't exist, in order to better set the stage and arrange excuses for killing the Jewish state. This is now recognized by Israelis as a key reason why past efforts at peace have failed: because the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
Secondly, a peace agreement must end the conflict, and terminate all territorial claims. When Arafat met with Israeli leaders at the White House Rose Garden, and promised peace, he also went before the Arabs and explained, in Arabic, that this was like the Treaty of Hudaybiya. That meant to them that it was a temporary deal, to allow the Arabs to strengthen themselves in preparation for future war and terrorism. It was merely a hudna. Hamas wants a hudna, in order to consolidate their gains, to prepare themselves for future war against Israel, so that they can better choose their time for their next attack. Hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel, and Israel of course does not share that goal. So it has no reason to cooperate with Hamas' efforts to realize that goal, including a hudna. Israelis want a peace agreement to end the conflict, not merely to give Hamas (or Fatah for that matter) time to build armaments for a more deadly war against Israel in the future.
Thirdly, the Arab "refugee" problem must be solved outside Israel's borders. I put "refugee" in quotes, because a special definition is used for refugees here to include people who have never set foot in Israel. These are descendants of refugees, and descendants of descendants, and descendants of descendants of refugees. They have been brutalized for generations by the Arab states, to have warriors to meet their goal of destroying Israel. If these millions of hostile Arabs were allowed into Israel, they would produce a civil war that would make Lebanon's civil war seem a frolic by comparison. They would also wage the jihad of the womb, and before long Israel would cease to exist as the Jewish state, and would cease to exist as any functioning state. This just becomes another method to destroy the Jewish state. Destroying Israel may have been Arafat's definition of "peace", but it is in fact completely contrary to the aspirations, rights and needs of Israelis. What sort of "peace" would this give -- the peace of the graveyard? It's not for Israel.
Fourth, there needs to be demilitarization of a Palestinian state, there need to be safeguards for Israel's security, and there needs to be an continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. Tawfik Hamad wrote about the Jew-hatred in the Muslim world, including the Arab world, and including the Palestinian Arabs. He wrote: "Pro-Palestinian Muslim demonstrators across the world repeatedly use the chant 'Khyber Khyber Ya Yahood.. Gaish Muhammad Sawfa Yaood,' which reminds the Jews that the army of Muhammad is coming back for a repeat of what was done to the Jewish Khyber tribe. According to authentic Islamic history books, the Islamic army, let by Muhammad, annihilated the Jewish tribe of Khyber, raping its women and killing all its men." It will take generations of re-education to repair the damage done by the continual anti-Jewish incitement by the Palestinian leaders, and to repair the damage done by the Jew-hatred in the Muslim world. The de-nazification will take generations, if it ever gets done. Until that time, if it ever gets done, Israelis need to be safe. So there has to be demilitarization of a Palestinian state, and safeguards for Israel's security. The examples of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and of Hizbollah in Lebanon, show the danger of allowing a hostile entity to receive smuggled rockets and missiles, which they will launch against Israelis. So of course Israel has to maintain a military presence along the Jordan River, to prevent weapons, missiles, and mujahadeen from reaching a hostile entity in Israel's heartland, in Judea and Samaria. And, of course, to also be able to put up a defense in case there is conventional war due to some regime change in the Arab states to the east of Israel.As the revolts in Arab states have shown, no regime can be assumed to be invulnerable to revolution and regime change.
Fifth, the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel, and united Jerusalem, undivided, will remain Israel's capital. The settlement blocs are population centers in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, where Jewish kings ruled and where Jewish prophets gave their immortal messages. I hear of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, and President Obama has reminded everyone of the needs of the people of Gaza. But, maybe I missed it, but I have never heard President Obama recognize that the 500,000 Jews living in what he calls "settlements" -- in Judea and Samaria, and in northern, southern, and eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- are also people, with their own inalienable rights, legitimate aspirations, and needs. Those rights, aspirations, and needs do not include being massacred, being expelled from their homes and communities, nor being denied basic freedoms such as having property rights and the right to build for their needs. As President George W. Bush understood, in a letter to then-prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, the U.S. expects Israel to insist on recognizing that history has produced centers of Jewish population in the land once occupied for 18 years -- 1948-1967 -- by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, and that Israel will insist on keeping that territory. Israel will not abandon 500,000 of its citizens to the fate that would be dealt them by the ethnic cleansers.
As for Jerusalem, as everyone knows, the Muslim prays toward Mecca, while the Jew prays toward Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3000 years, since King David made it his capital city. As long as Jerusalem is under the sovereignty of Israel, people of all faiths will continue to be able to exercise freedom of religion, including the right to make pilgrimage to holy places of Jerusalem. But when it was occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan for 18 years, Jewish synagogues were destroyed, the Jews were not allowed to visit the Temple Mount, nor allowed to visit the Western Wall, and holy gravestones were taken by Jordanian soldiers and used for latrines. Under Israeli sovereignty, all the residents of Jerusalem can live where they wish, and can build on their property. But under the laws of Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, it is a capital offense -- punishable by death -- to sell land to a Jew. Holy Jerusalem is no place where such bigotry can be allowed to flourish, and to avoid that situation of anti-Jewish bigotry, of destroying synagogues, of desecrating tombstones, of preventing pilgrimages to holy places, Israel must continue to have sovereignty over united, undivided Jerusalem.
Likewise, the Fatah constitution calls for the destruction of Israel.
.
Similarly, Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. For Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, peace means the end of the Dar al Harb, and the entire world becomes the Dar al Islam with everyone ruled by Sharia. There is no place in Hamas' concept of "peace" for the existence of Israel, and they have shown by their terrorist actions in bombing buses full of women shopping during the holidays that they are genocidal. They quote their scripture calling for genocide against the Jews, and their actions show that they mean it.
Recently, Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu explained what peace means to Israel, giving a vision of peace held by a majority of Israelis. The requirements for peace, according to the Israelis, are:
1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jews.
2. Any peace agreement with the Palestinians should end the conflict and all future Palestinian claims on land.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders. No Arab refugees in Israeli territory.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized, and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel's security. This must include a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
5. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel. Jerusalem will remain the united, undivided capital of Israel.
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu also said that the majority of Israeli were united in their belief that Israel's borders must be defended, that the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan must be kept intact, and Iran's nuclear weapons program must be kept in check.
The reasons for these should be obvious.
First, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. This is the first step toward ending the hatred and judeophobic incitement that has been going on among the Palestinians, as well as in the Arab world, and as well in the Muslim world, for a long time. Their leaders have spread the lie that the Jews have no historic connection with the Land of Israel. They have spread the lie that there is no Jewish people. Although international bodies have long called for a Jewish state, the leaders of the Palestinians have sought to abort the present Jewish state, and to even pretend that a Jewish state doesn't exist, in order to better set the stage and arrange excuses for killing the Jewish state. This is now recognized by Israelis as a key reason why past efforts at peace have failed: because the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
Secondly, a peace agreement must end the conflict, and terminate all territorial claims. When Arafat met with Israeli leaders at the White House Rose Garden, and promised peace, he also went before the Arabs and explained, in Arabic, that this was like the Treaty of Hudaybiya. That meant to them that it was a temporary deal, to allow the Arabs to strengthen themselves in preparation for future war and terrorism. It was merely a hudna. Hamas wants a hudna, in order to consolidate their gains, to prepare themselves for future war against Israel, so that they can better choose their time for their next attack. Hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel, and Israel of course does not share that goal. So it has no reason to cooperate with Hamas' efforts to realize that goal, including a hudna. Israelis want a peace agreement to end the conflict, not merely to give Hamas (or Fatah for that matter) time to build armaments for a more deadly war against Israel in the future.
Thirdly, the Arab "refugee" problem must be solved outside Israel's borders. I put "refugee" in quotes, because a special definition is used for refugees here to include people who have never set foot in Israel. These are descendants of refugees, and descendants of descendants, and descendants of descendants of refugees. They have been brutalized for generations by the Arab states, to have warriors to meet their goal of destroying Israel. If these millions of hostile Arabs were allowed into Israel, they would produce a civil war that would make Lebanon's civil war seem a frolic by comparison. They would also wage the jihad of the womb, and before long Israel would cease to exist as the Jewish state, and would cease to exist as any functioning state. This just becomes another method to destroy the Jewish state. Destroying Israel may have been Arafat's definition of "peace", but it is in fact completely contrary to the aspirations, rights and needs of Israelis. What sort of "peace" would this give -- the peace of the graveyard? It's not for Israel.
Fourth, there needs to be demilitarization of a Palestinian state, there need to be safeguards for Israel's security, and there needs to be an continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan River. Tawfik Hamad wrote about the Jew-hatred in the Muslim world, including the Arab world, and including the Palestinian Arabs. He wrote: "Pro-Palestinian Muslim demonstrators across the world repeatedly use the chant 'Khyber Khyber Ya Yahood.. Gaish Muhammad Sawfa Yaood,' which reminds the Jews that the army of Muhammad is coming back for a repeat of what was done to the Jewish Khyber tribe. According to authentic Islamic history books, the Islamic army, let by Muhammad, annihilated the Jewish tribe of Khyber, raping its women and killing all its men." It will take generations of re-education to repair the damage done by the continual anti-Jewish incitement by the Palestinian leaders, and to repair the damage done by the Jew-hatred in the Muslim world. The de-nazification will take generations, if it ever gets done. Until that time, if it ever gets done, Israelis need to be safe. So there has to be demilitarization of a Palestinian state, and safeguards for Israel's security. The examples of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and of Hizbollah in Lebanon, show the danger of allowing a hostile entity to receive smuggled rockets and missiles, which they will launch against Israelis. So of course Israel has to maintain a military presence along the Jordan River, to prevent weapons, missiles, and mujahadeen from reaching a hostile entity in Israel's heartland, in Judea and Samaria. And, of course, to also be able to put up a defense in case there is conventional war due to some regime change in the Arab states to the east of Israel.As the revolts in Arab states have shown, no regime can be assumed to be invulnerable to revolution and regime change.
Fifth, the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel, and united Jerusalem, undivided, will remain Israel's capital. The settlement blocs are population centers in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, where Jewish kings ruled and where Jewish prophets gave their immortal messages. I hear of the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, and President Obama has reminded everyone of the needs of the people of Gaza. But, maybe I missed it, but I have never heard President Obama recognize that the 500,000 Jews living in what he calls "settlements" -- in Judea and Samaria, and in northern, southern, and eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- are also people, with their own inalienable rights, legitimate aspirations, and needs. Those rights, aspirations, and needs do not include being massacred, being expelled from their homes and communities, nor being denied basic freedoms such as having property rights and the right to build for their needs. As President George W. Bush understood, in a letter to then-prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, the U.S. expects Israel to insist on recognizing that history has produced centers of Jewish population in the land once occupied for 18 years -- 1948-1967 -- by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, and that Israel will insist on keeping that territory. Israel will not abandon 500,000 of its citizens to the fate that would be dealt them by the ethnic cleansers.
As for Jerusalem, as everyone knows, the Muslim prays toward Mecca, while the Jew prays toward Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3000 years, since King David made it his capital city. As long as Jerusalem is under the sovereignty of Israel, people of all faiths will continue to be able to exercise freedom of religion, including the right to make pilgrimage to holy places of Jerusalem. But when it was occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan for 18 years, Jewish synagogues were destroyed, the Jews were not allowed to visit the Temple Mount, nor allowed to visit the Western Wall, and holy gravestones were taken by Jordanian soldiers and used for latrines. Under Israeli sovereignty, all the residents of Jerusalem can live where they wish, and can build on their property. But under the laws of Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, it is a capital offense -- punishable by death -- to sell land to a Jew. Holy Jerusalem is no place where such bigotry can be allowed to flourish, and to avoid that situation of anti-Jewish bigotry, of destroying synagogues, of desecrating tombstones, of preventing pilgrimages to holy places, Israel must continue to have sovereignty over united, undivided Jerusalem.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Folly of Ignoring a Foe's Goals
Today, when the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority has decided to take Hamas as a partner, governments around the world are tending to ignore the goals of the terrorist organization Hamas, and they would prefer that Israel do the same. A goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. That means that if Israel cooperates with Hamas, it is cooperating in plans for its own destruction.
An example of ignoring the real plans of a foe happened at Munich, when Britain's Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler's Germany by giving it a part of Czechoslavakia. "Peace in our time!" exulted Chamberlain, having gotten a piece of paper from Hitler. But Hitler's goal was not peace, it was conquest of much of the world. Receiving a key piece of Czechoslovakia allowed an easier conquest of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and convinced the Nazi German generals that Hitler seemed to know what he was doing, that he was on a successful path. It paved the way -- not for peace, but for the continued aggression that resulted in World War II.
A more recent example was provided by Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon forcibly removed some 9 thousand Jews who were living and working and raising families in Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip. He also removed Israeli soldiers from there. The newspaper The New York Times, in an editorial, exulted over their version of Chamberlain's "peace in our time". There has never been a better chance for peace, they enthused, leading readers to believe that this was the dawn of peace. What Israel got in return was the massive escalation of rocket fire into Israel, with thousands of rockets being fired into Israel. What Israel got was witnessing the election of the terrorist organization Hamas into the Palestinian government. The New York Times did not understand that the goal of a large segment of the Palestinian population was the destruction of Israel. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs' grievance was infinite, and no concessions by Israel could appease their grievance. Israeli concessions merely provided evidence of Israel's weakness, and showed them that the path of terrorism was a productive path for their goals. The New York Times made the mistake of overlooking the real popular goal of large segments of the Palestinian Arab population, and overlooked the fact that the grievance was infinite and unappeasable. Instead they apparently thought that the goal consisted of the excuse of the moment, the complaint about occupation by Israel, and The Times overlooked the real goal -- getting rid of Israel. Also, The Times, in their editorial, did not include a word about security matters, including the fact that the decreased security posed new dangers for Israel. So sure were they of their false assumptions that they did not even give any consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong. So they saw no need to even mention security. So they steered people to believe in the very opposite of the truth, seeing the evacuation of the Jews as a step toward peace when it was actually a step toward more violence against Israel, via the thousands of rockets fired at Israel.
Today there can be no doubt about the goal of Hamas to destroy Israel. Its own founding document makes that very clear. Now controlling the Gaza Strip, Hamas has indoctrinated the population of the Gaza Strip to have that goal of destroying Israel as their own goal. As Mahmud Abbas bows out of the picture in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will eventually come to dominate Arab areas of Judea and Samaria as well, and they will convert the vast majority of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs to their goal of destroying Israel. That is not the path to peace, but to endless war against Israel. Hamas has ties to the most militantly anti-Israel state of the region, which is Iran, and it will continue to receive more and more arms from Iran. Israel needs to prepare for defending itself against a stronger Iranian-Hamas rocket and terrorist presence in both the Gaza Strip and soon in Judea-Samaria.
For Israel to ignore Hamas' goals would be suicidal, and would be very unfortunate for Israel, inviting disaster. Just as Chamberlain's ignoring of Hitler's goals was self-delusionary and disastrous. It was disastrous not only for Britain but for all of the participants in World War II. It would add folly to tragedy to continue to make the same mistake of ignoring a foe's goals.
An example of ignoring the real plans of a foe happened at Munich, when Britain's Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler's Germany by giving it a part of Czechoslavakia. "Peace in our time!" exulted Chamberlain, having gotten a piece of paper from Hitler. But Hitler's goal was not peace, it was conquest of much of the world. Receiving a key piece of Czechoslovakia allowed an easier conquest of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and convinced the Nazi German generals that Hitler seemed to know what he was doing, that he was on a successful path. It paved the way -- not for peace, but for the continued aggression that resulted in World War II.
A more recent example was provided by Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon forcibly removed some 9 thousand Jews who were living and working and raising families in Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip. He also removed Israeli soldiers from there. The newspaper The New York Times, in an editorial, exulted over their version of Chamberlain's "peace in our time". There has never been a better chance for peace, they enthused, leading readers to believe that this was the dawn of peace. What Israel got in return was the massive escalation of rocket fire into Israel, with thousands of rockets being fired into Israel. What Israel got was witnessing the election of the terrorist organization Hamas into the Palestinian government. The New York Times did not understand that the goal of a large segment of the Palestinian population was the destruction of Israel. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs' grievance was infinite, and no concessions by Israel could appease their grievance. Israeli concessions merely provided evidence of Israel's weakness, and showed them that the path of terrorism was a productive path for their goals. The New York Times made the mistake of overlooking the real popular goal of large segments of the Palestinian Arab population, and overlooked the fact that the grievance was infinite and unappeasable. Instead they apparently thought that the goal consisted of the excuse of the moment, the complaint about occupation by Israel, and The Times overlooked the real goal -- getting rid of Israel. Also, The Times, in their editorial, did not include a word about security matters, including the fact that the decreased security posed new dangers for Israel. So sure were they of their false assumptions that they did not even give any consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong. So they saw no need to even mention security. So they steered people to believe in the very opposite of the truth, seeing the evacuation of the Jews as a step toward peace when it was actually a step toward more violence against Israel, via the thousands of rockets fired at Israel.
Today there can be no doubt about the goal of Hamas to destroy Israel. Its own founding document makes that very clear. Now controlling the Gaza Strip, Hamas has indoctrinated the population of the Gaza Strip to have that goal of destroying Israel as their own goal. As Mahmud Abbas bows out of the picture in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will eventually come to dominate Arab areas of Judea and Samaria as well, and they will convert the vast majority of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs to their goal of destroying Israel. That is not the path to peace, but to endless war against Israel. Hamas has ties to the most militantly anti-Israel state of the region, which is Iran, and it will continue to receive more and more arms from Iran. Israel needs to prepare for defending itself against a stronger Iranian-Hamas rocket and terrorist presence in both the Gaza Strip and soon in Judea-Samaria.
For Israel to ignore Hamas' goals would be suicidal, and would be very unfortunate for Israel, inviting disaster. Just as Chamberlain's ignoring of Hitler's goals was self-delusionary and disastrous. It was disastrous not only for Britain but for all of the participants in World War II. It would add folly to tragedy to continue to make the same mistake of ignoring a foe's goals.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Fatah Ideology Shifting?
A branch of Fatah known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has carried out anti-Israel terrorist operations in the past, and has been celebrated at a Fatah convention as an honored branch of Fatah.
On the reported killing of Osama bin-Laden, the Fatah group issued a statement, which included this (translated by Palestinian Media Watch): "We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing."
And we have been told by the mainstream media that Fatah is nationalistic and not religious. Doesn't this announcement concerning capability of martyrdom for "restoring the glory of Islam" sound sufficiently religious and jihadic to be noticed? Doesn't it sound like Fatah is moving under the Hamas tent?
On the reported killing of Osama bin-Laden, the Fatah group issued a statement, which included this (translated by Palestinian Media Watch): "We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing."
And we have been told by the mainstream media that Fatah is nationalistic and not religious. Doesn't this announcement concerning capability of martyrdom for "restoring the glory of Islam" sound sufficiently religious and jihadic to be noticed? Doesn't it sound like Fatah is moving under the Hamas tent?
Hamas-Fatah Partnership
The Hamas-Fatah partnership that has been announced means that there is no way that a permanent peace can be agreed on with the Jewish state. Hamas is a religious-based organization and has an ideology that excludes being at peace with a Jewish state. Its war against Israel is a religious war. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its motto emphasizes jihad, and dying for Allah (in jihad). It practices its ideology with terrorism, and is designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.
According to Hamas' ideology, since the region was once conquered by Muslims, it remains an Islamic trust, and must always be ruled by Muslims. For Israel, the state of Israel is a Jewish state. These are incompatible.
The Hamas-Fatah partnership, if recognized by the international community as governing a state, makes it impossible to have a permanent peace with Israel, and sets up the conditions for permanent religious warfare against Israel. This is a step in the direction of irredentist war, and away from permanent or long-lasting peace.
According to Hamas' ideology, since the region was once conquered by Muslims, it remains an Islamic trust, and must always be ruled by Muslims. For Israel, the state of Israel is a Jewish state. These are incompatible.
The Hamas-Fatah partnership, if recognized by the international community as governing a state, makes it impossible to have a permanent peace with Israel, and sets up the conditions for permanent religious warfare against Israel. This is a step in the direction of irredentist war, and away from permanent or long-lasting peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)