When were there ever any 'Palestinians'?
Consider the following:“Of all the Palestinian lies there is no lie greater or more crushing than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank... Not since the time of Dr. Goebbels has there been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has borne such great fruits....”Incredibly, that was written by Amnon Rubenstein of the Meretz party back in the days when supporting a 'Palestinian' state was rightfully considered treason in Israel. But Rubenstein was correct. There is no such thing as a separate 'Palestinian' nation.
– From “Palestinian Lies” in Haaretz, July 1976.
Remember Azmi Bishara, the 'Israeli Arab' politician who fled Israel when he was about to be indicted for treason for helping Hezbullah in the 2006 Second Lebanon War? Well, here he is on Israeli television in 1994.
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the full translation of what he said (translated by an Israeli in the comments, so the English isn't great)
"i dont think that there is palestinian nationRelying strictly on Arab sources, Martin Sherman writes that this is all part of a lie: The lie that there is a 'Palestinian nation.'
then he ask him "you dont think there is palestine?" and he answer: no i think there is arab nation i allways thought like that and i didnt change my mind, i dont think there is palestinian nation, i think it's colonial invention palestinian nation, when was palestinian people where is what *laughing* i think there is arab nation even if i am fighting against israel i didnt turn palestine.
The partition of Palestine, in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the passage of time... The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history or with true conception of what constitutes statehood.Read the whole thing. Why should we give one square inch of the Holy Land to these stinking frauds?
– Articles 17 and 18 of the original Palestinian National Covenant (1964). (The same clauses appear almost verbatim as Clauses 19 and 20 in the current version. Both are posted at the website of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine at the UN.) This declaration, made long before any “occupation” or “settlements,” highlights that Arab enmity towards Israel is fueled by its being – not by its borders. It proves irrefutably that the establishment of a Palestinian state and the eradication of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria will do nothing to attenuate the refusal to acknowledge the right of the Jews to a nation-state, whatever its frontiers – if any further proof was necessary after the 2005 Gaza debacle.
All of this should be borne in mind as September 23 approaches. For what we are about to witness at the UN is nothing less an endeavor at political alchemy – the conjuring up of a substantive political construct out of mere political myth; an attempt to produce a nation where the elements of nationhood do not exist; an effort to construct a state when the components of statehood are absent.
...
Not only do the Palestinians admit that they are not a discrete sociological entity, i.e., a people.
They also concede that as a political unit, i.e., a nation, their demands and aspirations as are neither genuine nor permanent.
Thus Muhsin candidly confessed: “It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel [sic].”
Doesn’t get much more explicit than that! Indeed the Palestinians not only affirm that their national demands are bogus, but that they are only a temporary instrumental ruse.
...
Article 16 of the original version of the Palestinian National sets out the desire of the people of Palestine, “who look forward to... restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty...”
However, since the Covenant was adopted in 1964, well before Israel “occupied” a square inch of the “West Bank” or Gaza, the question is precisely what is meant by “its territory” in which the Palestinians were “looking forward...to exercise national sovereignty.” Indeed in Article 24, they state specifically what this territory did not include, and where they were not seeking to exercise “national sovereignty.”
In it they explicitly proclaim that they do not desire to “exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip.”
From this we learn two stunning facts. Not only did the Palestinians not claim the “West Bank” and Gaza as part of their homeland, but they specifically excluded them from it. Moreover, they explicitly acknowledged – and accepted –that the “West Bank” belonged to another sovereign entity, the Hashemite Kingdom.
There is thus not the slightest resemblance – indeed not even one square inch of overlap – between the territory claimed by the Palestinians as their “homeland” when they first formulated their national aspirations and the “homeland” allegedly envisaged/claimed today.
Indeed, the two visions of “homeland” territories are mutually exclusive.
Accordingly, it would seem that Jewish rule is far more central in defining the location of the Palestinian “homeland” than any “collective historical memory.”
For the Palestinians only incorporated the “West Bank” (and Gaza) in their territorial claims when they came under Israeli control – clearly vindicating the view that the concept of “Palestinian-ness” is a fabricated construct, conjured up to further the Arab quest to repudiate “Jewishness.”
Labels: Amnon Rubenstein, Azmi Bishara, there's no such thing as 'Palestine'
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:17 PM
5 Comments:
Some big lies are successful. Historians, even guys like the current Pope, who should know better, talk about "Palestine" as if it's some kingdom that existed even before Biblical Israel, as in "Moses led the Jews out of Egypt into Palestine"
Carl:
Of all the dumb arguments against Palestinian statehood this is the dumbest. That's because even if it's true (and it is indeed largely true) it doesn't matter.
A people only have a sense of nationhood when that people develops that sense. But once they have it, they have it. Whether it's five years old or five thousand doesn't matter.
Unless you think you can persuade a people out of feeling that way about themselves, they are going to feel that way. But you don't really think you can convince the Palestinians to abandon their nationalism, do you?
What exactly is this line of argument suppose to mean? What are you trying to achieve here? How is this useful or helpful to the case of Israel/Palestinian peace? Lets grant that your entire supposition, that there are no "people call Pelestinians." is correct. So what? Do you really believe that by wishing away the name that the world is just going to go on allowing Israel to continue to treat the poeple who lives in these territories, calling themself Palestinians,the way they have been treated thus far? I am really interested in what this line of argument is supposed to achive? I ask this questions seriously.
What exactly is this line of argument suppose to mean? What are you trying to achieve here? How is this useful or helpful to the case of Israel/Palestinian peace? Lets grant that your entire supposition, that there are no "people call Pelestinians." is correct. So what? Do you really believe that by wishing away the name that the world is just going to go on allowing Israel to continue to treat the poeple who lives in these territories, calling themself Palestinians,the way they have been treated thus far? I am really interested in what this line of argument is supposed to achive? I ask this questions seriously.
New Dome--Israel is not "treating the people who live in the territories" cruelly. It is only trying to prevent those people from periodically conducting pogroms against Jews. The issue is not what "the world"--the nations--will or will not "allow" the Jewish state to do as some collective will. The world, as represented in the UN, towards Israel, is, as a generality, a brothel, a vampiric gaggle of pimps in suits--it is not Israel's duty to pay heed to the "world" but to use its sechel to find the few honorable exceptions to the perfume-drenched whoredom playing house in the puzzle palace on the Hudson River to assist the Jewish state in resisting its would-be oppressors.
Post a Comment
<< Home