If you want to get an idea of the kind of visceral hatred for Israel that exists in the American national security establishment, have a look at this piece in Politico from Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Lee Hamilton, Carla A. Hills, Thomas Pickering and Henry
Siegman (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News). With the exception of Siegman, who is just another self-hating Jew, and Hamilton, who is a former Congressman, the rest are all former Secretaries of State and/or National Security Advisers. The word 'terror' doesn't appear in this piece. To give you a flavor, this is how they dismiss Israel's security concerns:
The United States has allowed the impression that it
supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of
all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the
Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies,
surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s
security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir
Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than
manipulation.”
Israel’s confiscation of what
international law has clearly established as others’ territory
diminishes its security. Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the
Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s
half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a
revanchismthat sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. No
Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that
entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either
permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace
accord that would end Israel’s occupation. The marginal improvement in
Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly
justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to
which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.
Here's a very different perspective on Israel's national security.
Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned
to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s
president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not
demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6,
1967, line.
Remind me please which side rejected the 1947 partition plan? Why should they have any right to even mention it now? June 6 line? I thought the war broke out on June 5 and we usually talk about the June 4 line. And as to 'Palestinian' demands on that territory, you can bet they will come right after a 'treaty' is signed.
Do you still wonder why America's foreign policy establishment hates us even though the American people love us?
I hope you'll all forgive the Hebrew title, but it's kind of hard to translate meaningfully. Let me explain.
In Jewish law, when certain fast days fall on Saturday, we put them off to Sunday. The exception to this is the Fast of Esther, which is advanced to Thursday. The reason? Because the other fast days that are put off relate to tragedies and we don't advance the observance of tragedies. The Fast of Esther (just before Purim), on the other hand, is related to the war in which the Jews routed the Persians, and does not recall a tragedy. If it falls on Saturday, we advance it to Thursday (which is good because Purim in such a case would come out on Sunday except in certain cities in Israel where it would come out on Monday).
Now that I have confused you totally, I'm sure you all understand why I used a four-word Hebrew phrase to title this post.
I would have thought that much of the United Nations would consider the partition of 'Palestine' into Jewish and Arab states in 1947 - accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs who went to war over it - a tragedy. Therefore, if the date on which that 'tragedy' is observed - November 29 - falls on Black Friday, as is the case this year, it ought to have been pushed off to Saturday, Sunday or Monday.... Instead, the United Nations advanced it to Monday. Maybe they were afraid the media would take the weekend off?
Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor slammed the U.N. for its conduct regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Anti-Israel bias pervades the U.N. system all
year round," Prosor said. "In 2012, [the U.N. General Assembly] found
the time to pass 22 resolutions condemning Israel -- compared with only
four that single out other nations," Prosor said. "The worst human
rights abusers receive a fraction of the condemnation that Israel -- the
only democracy in the Middle East -- receives. These irresponsible
actions have irreversible consequences. The states that rubberstamp the
anti-Israel resolutions every year, have given the Palestinians a false
sense of reality and fed their culture of victimhood."
"All those who claim to advance peace must
remind the Palestinians that there are no shortcuts," Prosor said.
"Peace is not achieved by changing your nameplate at the U.N.; it isn't
achieved by unilateral actions or by passing a string of anti-Israel
resolutions; and it won't be achieved in Manhattan, Midtown east, but
rather in the Middle East. So long as the Palestinian leadership chooses
symbolism over pragmatism, it will be harder to achieve peace."
Prosor said that U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel "have no relationship to the facts on the ground."
"Just last week the U.N. adopted nine
resolutions condemning Israel," Prosor said. "One of these resolutions
condemned Israel's treatment of the Syrian people. Condemned Israel's
treatment of the Syrian people? It is inconceivable that while Israeli
hospitals are treating the Syrians who escaped [Syrian President Bashar]
Assad's massacre, the U.N. is denouncing Israel's treatment of the
Syrians."
"If that weren't enough, the GA will soon vote on another resolution
calling on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights and its residents to
Syria. It is nothing short of absurd for the U.N. to demand that even
more civilians be subject to Assad's brutality."
Aren't you glad that your country belongs to the UN and that your taxes support it?
Joe's Israel posts a video about the 'secret recipe' for a 'Palestinian state.'
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have more after the video.
My only problem with this is that I don't believe there ought to be a 'Palestinian state.' The 'Palestinians' had dozens of chances and blew every last one of them. Actions h ave consequences!
And besides, given the last 100 years or so of terror, why does anyone think the 'Palestinian' leopard can or will change its stripes?
The Wall Street Journal reports that 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen has gone to New York and submitted a resolution to upgrade his entity's status at the United Nations General Assembly. The 'Palestinians' hope to bring the resolution to a vote on Thursday, which is the anniversary of the 1947 vote to partition into a Jewish and an Arab state the 22% of the 'Palestine' mandate that remained after most of the mandate was used to create the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It is an historical fact that the Jews accepted the partition, while the Arabs rejected it, preferring instead to drive the Jews into the sea.
Since 132 nations have already recognized the territory as a
sovereign state, with some having exchanged ambassadors, a simple
majority vote of 97 countries is all but certain.
Israel and the U.S. have put intense pressure on Mahmoud Abbas,
president of the Fatah Party-led Palestinian Authority, to put off the
vote, arguing it is a "unilateral" move in the multilateral assembly,
and that statehood can only come through direct Israeli-Palestinian
talks. The U.S. Congress has threatened to cut off funding to the
authority and to any U.N. agency Palestinians might join as a result of
their U.N. upgrade. Israel has threatened to withhold tax revenue, which
it collects for the Palestinians.
Despite these threats, Mr. Abbas is heading to New York to be present
for the Thursday vote, which may garner as many as 130 votes in favor,
diplomats said.
As the conflict raged in Gaza last week, the Palestinians' bid to
become a nonmember observer state—which had been a focal point in
Palestinian-Israeli relations—had essentially become a sideshow.
But now that the dust has settled from the latest round of violence,
diplomats say a groundswell of support for the Palestinian Authority and
its U.N. upgrade has been gaining ground because the war politically
strengthened Hamas at the expense of the more pro-Western authority.
More countries are lining up to support the U.N. bid to bolster the
authority at Hamas' expense, as the authority has renounced violence,
recognized Israel's right to exist and is considered a more reliable
negotiating partner than Hamas, diplomats said.
"This war has bolstered the prestige of Hamas because of its
resilience against Israel, and the whole idea now is saving Abbas," said
a European diplomat. "Fatah is in a politically difficult situation and
the idea is to try to restore or at least heal their political wounds,
and perhaps provide them with some political prestige by attaining a new
status at the U.N."
...
As an upgraded observer state, a Palestinian state could join
treaties and specialized U.N. agencies, such as the International Civil
Aviation Organization, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Criminal Court, officials
said. That would give a Palestinian state legal rights over its
territorial waters and air space, and would allow it to bring war-crimes
charges against Israel.
"So many doors would open up to us," said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer.
But there are serious risks for the Palestinians and for the U.N.
system if the vote is held. Israel has threatened to withhold $100
million a month in tax revenue, which it collects for Ramallah, if they
go ahead with it.
The U.S. Congress has threatened to cut off $500 million in security
and economic aid to the Palestinians if it becomes an observer state.
Congress cut off funding last year to Unesco, the U.N.'s cultural
agency, when it accepted a Palestinian state as a member. Congress has
already decided to stop funding any other U.N. organization that the
territory joins as a result of its upgraded status.
Despite these threats, the Palestinians are going for a Thursday vote.
"If anything Abbas is even more emboldened and certain to push ahead
on Thursday since the Gaza crisis has helped Hamas's stock rise at the
cost of Fatah's international clout. For example it gained more respect
and attention from Egypt, Turkey and Qatar," said a U.N. Security
Council diplomat.
The 316-word Palestinian draft calls for a resumption of talks with
Israel, without mentioning a long-standing authority condition of a
freeze on the building of settlements in the West Bank first. It also
makes no mention of joining U.N. agencies and treaties.
Before it was submitted on Monday, a European diplomat said that to
get more EU votes the draft should "make it explicit it isn't an
application to join funds and programs," which could trigger the
defunding.
By leaving out direct mention of joining the International Criminal
Court or the other agencies, the Palestinians could keep those options
in reserve as "bargaining chips" with the Israelis down the road, rather
than "shoot the whole quiver" on Thursday, the diplomat said.
CIA: Without outside assistance Jews in Palestine won't survive more than two years
Here's a fascinating little document. It's a report issued by the CIA on November 28, 1947, one day before the vote on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, and it argued against the partition.
Among other things, the report claimed that without significant outside assistance, the Zionists (Jews) would not last more than two years (so much for that argument) and that the United States had destroyed its prestige in the Middle East by supporting the partition plan.
I am embedding the report below (Hat Tip: Will). It's only 19 pages.
Notwithstanding alleged U.N. support for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, at New York Headquarters Tuesday only the flag of the non-state of Palestine was flown alongside the U.N.’s own flag. The flag of the member state of Israel was barred.
...
This year Palestinian U.N. Ambassador Riyad Mansour tried to gather momentum for propelling the unilateral Palestinian statehood bid forward. A controversial statement of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, delivered by his Deputy, appeared intended to do just that.
The Secretary-General announced: “The Palestinian Authority is now institutionally ready to assume the responsibilities of statehood…” No matter that the Palestinian gambit violates UN resolutions, the Roadmap, bilateral agreements and repeated international and bilateral commitments to negotiations. Ban also said “Jerusalem must emerge from negotiations as the capital of two states” – despite remembering near the end of his statement that “the goal” was “a negotiated peace agreement on all final status issues including…Jerusalem.” And Ban called “settlement activity” “contrary to international law,” while explaining to “those in Gaza who fire rockets at Israel and smuggle weapons” that “these actions are unacceptable and contrary to Palestinian interests.”
Speaking on behalf of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Mansour clearly relished his annual moment at UN center stage. He accused Israel of the alleged offense of “Judaization,” in addition to “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid.” Without batting an eye over the preposterous distortion, he claimed Israel’s membership in the UN was “conditional” upon “Israel’s commitment to the partition resolution” which he stressed gave it less area than it has now. He never mentioned that in 1947 Jews accepted the resolution and Arabs rejected it.
Solidarity Day also featured Yahya Mahmassani, speaking for the League of Arab States, who explicitly rejected Israel’s “insistence on recognition as a Jewish state.” Only one representative of “civil society” was invited – Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights. The reasons for his invitation quickly became clear as he called Israel an “apartheid state,” demanded “boycotts, divestment and sanctions,” claimed Israel was guilty of “pogroms,” and alleged that U.S. support for Israel resulted from our being “held hostage to domestic politics.” Ambassador Mansour clapped when the rant finally ended.
At the conclusion of the speeches, the Senegalese Chair of the UN “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” encouraged everyone to attend the screening by the UN of the film “La Terre Parle Arabe” or “The Land Speaks Arabic” – “in order to show solidarity with the Palestinian people.” Advertised in the UN daily journal,, the film draws parallels between the Nazis’ final solution and the alleged Zionist “brutal plans” for Palestinians.
...
The carefully orchestrated day also had other components. The U.N. event room prominently featured a set of six-foot high information panels; they described successive attempts at the Arab annihilation of Israel as random acts of spontaneous combustion.
...
Moreover, in the public entrance to the U.N. – a staple for all visiting American school children – an exhibit was launched teaching the same pathology of historical Palestinian ownership of modern Israel, the recognition of Jewish self-determination as a “catastrophe,” and innocent peace-loving Palestinians continuing to suffer at Israeli hands.
Entitled “Palestinian Vista: Uprooted from our homeland…” it purports to describe “the eternal love of the people for their land” and ties to “antiquity.” Paintings include one of a weeping Palestinian woman called “Tears reflecting our catastrophe,” and another of a Palestinian man clutching a tree accompanied by the words “If olive trees were able to recall their farmers, their oil would have turned into tears!”
The conclusion of the exercise culminates today with the adoption by the General Assembly of six more resolutions condemning Israel. This will bring the 2011 total for General Assembly condemnations of Israel to twenty as compared to seven criticizing human rights in all other 192 U.N. member states...combined.
This is a must see. This is the speech given in the UN General Assembly on Tuesday by Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor. The occasion was the General Assembly's annual bash Israel fest, which takes place every year on the anniversary of the UN resolution approving the partition of Britain's Palestine Mandate in 1947.
Israeli Arab from Abu Ghosh tells Israel Radio that Israeli Arabs came from abroad
An Israeli Arab from Abu Ghosh says that most Israeli Arabs came from other countries and have not been here since 'time immemorial.'
What a shock.
He also talks about the residents of Abu Ghosh - a village just outside Jerusalem - who are all descended from one man who came here from... the Caucasus. Ooops. Not here from 'time immemorial' either.
Let's go to the videotape.
On Tuesday, the United Nations will observe the anniversary of the 1947 partition plan by calling for the land to be given to the party that was not willing to compromise in 1947 and is not willing to compromise today. They will claim that the 'Palestinians' - a fictional people - have been here since 'time immemorial.' When you hear those claims, keep Ibrahim in mind.
Tuesday is a very significant day in the history of the State of Israel (in fact, there's a street named after it here in Jerusalem and in many other cities). I may have run this video last year, but it's worth running again to remind you all of what happened.
Abu Mazen: Arabs made a mistake by rejecting 1947 partition plan
In an interview shown on Israel's Channel 2 on Friday night, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen admitted that the Arabs made a mistake by not accepting the 1947 partition plan from the United Nations.
The Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept a UN plan to partition the then-British-controlled mandate of Palestine sparked widespread fighting, then Arab military intervention after Israel declared independence the following year. The Arabs lost the war.
"It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview to the Israeli media. "But do they (the Israelis) punish us for this mistake for 64 years?"
Three words Abu: Actions have consequences. You can't keep asking for 'do-overs' until the end of time.
Abbas also contended that he and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were "very, very close" to reaching a peace agreement in 2008, before the Israeli leader left office under a cloud of corruption allegations.
"It was a very good opportunity," he said. "If he stayed two, three months, I believe that time we could have concluded an agreement."
He confirmed Olmert's account that the Israeli leader was prepared to withdraw from 93.5 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians, Abbas added, responded by offering to let Israel retain 1.9 percent of the West Bank.
But the 'Palestinians' then walked away and decided to wait for Obama to get them a better offer - which is unlikely.
You can watch the full interview here beginning at the 14:00 mark. The interview is mostly in English although the narrative that goes with it is in Hebrew. The interview ends around the 25:00 mark, and then there's more analysis in Hebrew until past the 30:00 mark.
Now here's a story I've never heard before, which shows, in my not so humble opinion, just how much God was behind the establishment of the State of Israel.
In August 1947, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) surprisingly recommended ending the British Mandate for Palestine, and partitioning the country into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Of course, the Arabs rejected the partition, and when the resolution passed (Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947 they started a war against the Jewish community, which intensified when Britain withdrew on May 15, 1948, and Israel declared its independence.
But UNSCOP was supposed to be very pro-Arab and very anti-Israel. The last thing it was expected to recommend was the establishment of a Jewish state. So how did it happen? Through a combination of Arab intransigence (again, sounds familiar doesn't it?) and Jewish ingenuity (that sounds familiar too).
The Arabs threatened all of their people with death if they spoke to UNSCOP, while the US and Britain wished to maintain an appearance of neutrality, and therefore were not represented on it. That left room for the Haganah's intelligence agency (now the Mossad) to go to work. But the story sounds like something straight out of Salah Shabbati, complete with a very funny coincidence with cows crossing the road (yes, I'm going to give it to you). The real story is coming out now as UNSCOP documents are being declassified and a book about UNSCOP's role is being written by Elad Ben Dror.
The committee consisted of 11 members who arrived in Palestine on June 15, 1947. Because the U.S. and Britain wished to maintain the appearance of neutrality, no international powers were represented in the delegation. The Palestinians believed a deal to establish a Jewish state had already been made behind closed doors and so ordered a complete boycott of committee proceedings. Palestinians were warned against making any contact whatsoever with Unscop, and Arab journalists were forbidden to cover their visit. Out of fear of appearing to support one side over the other, the British, too, avoided contact with the committee. In the vacuum created by the Arabs and the British, Zionist diplomats and spies were able to work unencumbered on the Unscop members. The Jewish Agency (the representative body of the Jewish community in the British Mandate) appointed a former British intelligence officer, Aubrey (Abba) Eban, to serve as a liaison with Unscop. Eban focused his energies on two Latin American members, from Guatemala and Uruguay, who became increasingly pro-Zionist as the committee’s investigation proceeded, providing Eban with inside information on specific members and their deliberations.
Alongside Eban, the entire intelligence service of the Jewish underground organization Haganah was put to work monitoring Unscop members. Microphones were placed in hotel and conference rooms. All phone conversations were tapped. The cleaning staff in the building in Jerusalem where the committee held daily hearings was replaced by female agents who reported back each day on its activities. The tactic did not go unnoticed. A member of the Swedish delegation complained that the women on the cleaning staff were “too pretty and educated. They are the eyes and ears of the Zionist leaders, who come to hearings with replies prepared in advance.” The committee’s chairman, Emil Sandstrom, also suspected the Guatemalan member of leaking information to Eban. “I don’t know that he took their money,” Sandstrom commented, “but he certainly took their girls.” At the end of each day, intelligence was collated and circulated to the heads of the Jewish community under the code name Delphi Report, which bore the inscription “Read and destroy!”
The Haganah also gathered personal information on each member, in an effort to discover his particular areas of interest and vulnerabilities. On many of the field trips that committee members took, efforts were made to ensure that they serendipitously encountered someone who spoke their language or shared a common interest. N. S. Blom, a former Dutch official in Indonesia, arrived in Palestine with a pro-Arab agenda, but during his stay he found himself in frequent impromptu meetings with immigrants from the Netherlands, who pressed a different perspective upon him. On one occasion, while traveling in his official vehicle, he came across two farmers herding dairy cows across the road. When Blom got out of the car he discovered that, amazingly, the two farmers were immigrants from the Netherlands. Even more important, their cows were also of Dutch stock! In his otherwise dry reports to the Dutch Foreign Ministry, a welling up of national pride over the contribution of Dutch dairy farming to agriculture in the Holy Land stands out.
Wherever they went in Arab centers of population, committee members encountered empty streets and Palestinian Arabs fleeing restaurants in fear for their lives. Their experience in Jewish areas was quite different. In Tel Aviv, the day Unscop visited was declared a public holiday. The streets were decorated with flags, and friendly crowds surrounded the members wherever they went. The mayor of Tel Aviv welcomed them warmly, and at the end of a meeting at City Hall, the members were invited to step out on the balcony, at which point the crowd below broke into the Jewish anthem, “Hatikvah.”
Even the Iranian delegate, Nasrollah Entezam, initially viewed by the Jewish Agency as a die-hard opponent of Zionism, turned into a supporter of sorts. During a visit to an agricultural settlement in the Negev, Entezam’s Jewish liaison officer (who was a Persian-speaking Haganah agent) overheard him telling a colleague: “What asses the Arabs are! The country is so beautiful, and it can be developed. If they gave it all to the Jews, they would transform it into Europe!”
By contrast, committee members were dismayed by what they saw of British rule in Palestine. The U.N. secretary general’s main representative on the committee, the American Ralph Bunche, wrote of “daily bombings, shootings, kidnappings, sirens, security checks.” Some members traveled to the port city Haifa, where they witnessed 4,500 Holocaust refugees being taken off the famous ship Exodus and transferred to another vessel that would take them back to Europe. The Swede Sandstrom was particularly affected by the experience. “Without this evidence, our investigation would not have been complete,” he wrote in one of the classified documents located by Ben-Dror.
The 'Palestinians' are offended that al-AP actually had the audacity to check some of the facts in Abu Mazen's UN General Assembly speech.
However, the Associated Press has decided not only to provide news but also its own opinions and terminology, thus misrepresenting its own reported news and adopting the discourse of one of the parties to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; that of the occupier. We the Palestinians have been greatly disappointed about AP regarding several news reports, including their last “fact check” or opinion piece on the historic speech delivered by president Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.
It is greatly unfair and undemocratic for AP in its capacity as a news agency to distribute its commentaries, ideas, and erroneous fact checks, while it refuses to allow rebuttal through the same channel. Respectable news agencies in a democratic and transparent mode of behavior are accountable to the public. They cannot be beyond accountability. If they misquote, disseminate erroneous news, or editorialize, they must allow correction, apologies, and provision of equal space for rebuttal.
And what did the AP find and say that so offended the 'Palestinians'?
The Associated Press opinion piece questioned the historic speech of President Abbas. We believe that the so-called fact checks raised by AP are mostly ideological and not factual. AP adopts the Israeli language, and misinterpretation of facts. Some of the responses to President Abbas' speech were:
-- In response to “we are the last people living under occupation”, AP says “The world is full of ethnic minorities that might claim to be ruled by occupiers, ranging from Tibetans living under Chinese rule, to Kurds in Turkey, Basques in Spain, Chechens in Russia and Muslim separatists in Indian-ruled Kashmir.”
Our case cannot be compared to any of those (honoring the legitimacy that every people have). We are not an “ethnic minority” aiming to separate from a bigger country that we have been part of for centuries. We are the indigenous population of this land that has been colonized by illegal foreign occupiers. In 1917, we were colonized by Britain, which helped deliver 78 percent of our land to the Israelis in 1948, who in 1967 occupied the rest of our country i.e. the West Bank and Gaza. It is not up to a news agency to decide who we are; the world has already accepted the fact that we have been living under colonial rule for the past decades.[No they're not an ethnic minority, but they're not indigenous either. CiJ].
-- In response to a reference of Palestinian prisoners being prisoners of conscience and struggle for freedom, AP says “Abbas did not mention that most Palestinian prisoners are being held because of alleged involvement in violence against Israelis. Israel's prison service says it's holding some 6,000 "security" prisoners, many of them involved in planning or carrying out deadly attacks on civilians.”
With this response, AP has officially recognized the legitimacy of Israeli military tribunals over Palestinian civilians. International law is clear, civilian prisoners deserve a fair trial that cannot be guaranteed by the State of Israel, the occupying power. Military prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war, under the Geneva conventions. AP omits that since the Israeli occupation began in 1967, almost 900,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israeli forces. One wonders if you think that the majority has been involved in what Israel calls "security" offenses. Under Israeli military laws, the Israeli army can detain any Palestinian without any justification. Thousands were imprisoned under "administrative detention" regulations requiring no declared pretext, or legal reasons. AP accepted unquestionably the Israeli claim. [So is a 'Palestinian' suicide bomber in civilians clothes military or civilian? And who is responsible for blurring the distinction? CiJ]
-- AP criticized President Abbas for not stating the ties of the Jewish religion with the Holy Land.
This statement is purely ideological. President Abbas was representing the rights of his people. Palestine shows great respect for all peoples and religions that have passed though Palestine, including Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. [But not Jews who have had a continuous presence in what he calls 'Palestine' for 3,000 years. CiJ].
To blame President Abbas for not explicitly stating the Jewish connection with the Holy Land is for AP to officially adopt the Israeli position and to impose it on its readers. [No news agency can impose anything on its readers. You are always free to question, although in the 'Palestinian Authority' and in most other Arab and Muslim countries, you may not, or you may be restricted in doing so openly. CiJ] President Abbas did not say that Palestine is exclusively for the followers of Christianity or Islam, whereas Mr Netanyahu wants Israel to be exclusively for the Jews, thus jeopardizing the rights and future of 1.5 million citizens, comprising 22 percent of the population of Israel, all of whom are indigenous native Christian and Muslim citizens and not settlers imposed by the force of military occupation on their land. [No, they are not indigenous. If anything, the Jewish claim to the land goes back far before any Christian or Muslim claim - or even existence. And by the way, why does Israel have to accept Arab citizens - which it said it would do - if the 'Palestinians' insist that 'Palestine' be Judenrein. CiJ]
-- In response to the reference made regarding the Gaza Strip and President Abbas' condemnation of Israel for committing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza, AP considers that Hamas' actions ends Gaza's relationship with Palestine, giving Israel the right to kill 1,400 of its civilians, injuring 50,000, many with phosphorus bombs, and destroying 20 percent of its homes. [Huh? And by the way, about 1,100 of those killed were proven to be Hamas militia. If you think that 300 civilian casualties (at most) out of 1,400 is a high percentage, check those statistics against US-caused civilians deaths in Iraq or NATO-caused civilian deaths in Bosnia, among others. CiJ] AP disqualifies President Abbas from condemning the Israeli actions deemed as war crimes by the UN, and its investigating committee led by Richard Goldstone. [Except that Goldstone recanted.... CiJ]
-- AP says that “The Palestinians did not accept two Israeli peace offers, in 2000 and 2008, that offered them a state in the vast majority of the territories they claim. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly offered to launch negotiations -- but refused to accept minimum outlines of a peace deal endorsed by the Palestinians and the international community. He has also not met the Palestinian condition of a settlement freeze for the duration of the talks.”
AP once again has adopted the official Israeli line of blaming the Palestinian side for not accepting to sign these Israeli "peace offers" requiring the Palestinians to accept a state without international borders, no control over air space, electromagnetic sphere, natural resources nor access to our capital Jerusalem as well as no solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. AP fails to mention the countless Palestinian attempts to have meaningful negotiations, the Palestinian Peace Proposal of 1988, the Arab Peace Plan of 2002, and all the other proposals made by the Palestinian side. Regarding the 2008 offer, we point out that AP failed to mention that Mr Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, refused to continue the negotiations because of his war on Gaza and later on for his Israeli legal problems. When Mr Netanyahu spent 19 hours negotiating with President Abbas during the month of September, 2010 shuttling between Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem, he refused to negotiate any of the major six core points, which outline all our joint negotiating effort, insisting that he had no mandate to do so until President Abbas accepts his two preconditions:
1. Accepting the exclusive Jewish character of Israel and
2. Accepting Netanyahu's defense doctrine of maintaining indefinitely the Israeli occupation of the Jordan Valley, and territories 10 kilometers deep into the western borders of the West Bank.[Please.... When I searched 'Palestinian peace proposal of 1988, the first result I found was this. And as to the Saudi plan, it basically says, "give us all the land, let us flood what's left with 'refugees' and then we'll talk." Some peace plan. There's never been a real 'Palestinian' peace plan and there's never been a 'Palestinian' response to an Israeli one. CiJ].
-- AP also claims that the settlement freeze is a Palestinian precondition to negotiate, while in reality it is an Israeli obligation according to the Road Map, the same way that East Jerusalem is not “disputed” but internationally recognized as occupied (another regular misrepresentation made by AP reporting). [AFTER the 'Palestinians' shut down all the terror organizations. We're still waiting on that one. CiJ]
AP’s so-called fact check continues this line of argument by stating: “Israel might argue — as Netanyahu did in his rebuttal Friday — that Arab enmity to Israel long preceded the settlement of lands occupied in 1967".
AP thus completely misrepresents the history of Palestine. The two-state solution, adopted officially by the PLO in 1988, has been the greatest step to peace. However, allowing Israel to continue its colonial settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal, unfair, and makes the two-state solution impossible to implement. President Mahmoud Abbas was also clear that the injustice against the Palestinian people began with our exile in 1948 rather than only with the 1967 occupation. The catastrophe of the 1948 Nakba and forced transfer of our refugees has been unveiled by Israel's own prominent historians such as Benny Morris, and recognized by the Israeli negotiating paper on refugees in Taba, 2001. We would like to ask the so called "fact-checkers" how this Netanyahu false interpretation of history makes settlements legal, and its continuation acceptable, despite international rulings, and the Road Map. [He's changing the subject. Hebron 1929. The 1936-38 riots. The Peel Commission. Let's just revise history. CiJ]
Last but not least, AP omits to say that Israel is the only country in the United Nations whose acceptance as a member was conditional to the respect of two UN resolutions: 181 (two states) and 194 (right to return). Israel has not implemented any of these requirements. [Three no's of Khartoum anyone? In any event, they weren't requirements and Israel was accepted to the UN by the General Assembly (Resolution 273 (III)) and the Security Council (Resolution 69) and not by 181 or 194. CiJ].
Sorry not many links in this one. If you put in the comments that you want to see them, I will try to find them, but all of these things have been discussed here before. Click the labels.
London's Daily Telegraph has the text of 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen's letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon requesting 'statehood.' Not only are the words '1967 borders' not mentioned; it also doesn't mention the 1949 armistice lines. Instead, Abu Bluff wants to go back to the 1947 partition plan, which was rejected on the spot by the Arabs because it allowed a Jewish state at all.
"Excellency,
I have the profound honor, on behalf of the Palestinian people, to submit this application of the state of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations.
"This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people's natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.
"In this connection, the state of Palestine affirms its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, as endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and the international community as a whole and based on international law and all relevant United Nations resolutions.
"For the purpose of this application for admission, a declaration made pursuant to rule 58 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council and rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly is appended to this letter.
"I shall be grateful if you would transmit this letter of application and the declaration to the presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly as soon as possible,
Mahmoud Abbas
President of the State of Palestine
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
Palestine Liberation Organization."
I warned back in July that this was where it was headed. Here's a map to give you an idea of what 1947 would mean (Israel liberated much more territory in the War of Independence).
Israel would be the blue parts on the map. It would mean no Jerusalem and no airport. Even more indefensible borders than the 1949 armistice lines. The 'Palestinians' ignore Security Council Resolution 242, which requires that Israel be left with 'defensible borders' and says nothing about a 'Palestinian state.'
Heads up: 'Palestinians' planning mass marches against Israel from day before UN vote
Starting September 20, the day before the United Nations is scheduled to vote on allowing the 'Palestinians' to declare a reichlet, the 'Palestinians' plan to conduct mass marches against Israel, calling for the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the 'partition plan' that Israel accepted but the Arabs (there were no 'Palestinians' then) rejected in 1947.
Palestinian officials said Monday they plan to begin mass marches against Israel's occupation of the West Bank on Sept. 20, the eve of the U.N. vote.
Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said leaders hope to attract millions, and the protest will be the first of a prolonged effort. He said the campaign would be called "Palestine 194," since the Palestinians hope to become the 194th member of the United Nations.
"The appeal to the U.N. is a battle for all Palestinians, and in order to succeed, it needs millions to pour into streets," he said.
'Palestinians' to give up on bid for full UN membership to avoid US veto?
'Palestinian' sources and European diplomats say that the 'Palestinians' are considering giving up on becoming full members of the United Nations, and instead seeking non-member state status 'within the 1967 borders' from the General Assembly. This would avoid a US veto in the Security Council and would only require a majority vote in the General Assembly.
Following the failed meeting of the Quartet foreign ministers in Washington last week, the Palestinians recognized that the United States will veto any resolution that will be brought before the UN Security Council for unilateral Palestinian statehood. Moreover, the Palestinians have also concluded that turning to the Security Council with a request for full membership in the UN is a more complicated proposition, largely because of time constraints.
Palestinian sources and European diplomats said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides are increasingly leaning toward a direct appeal to the General Assembly of the international organization. Even though the assembly lacks the authority to offer the Palestinians full UN membership, at the General Assembly the United States is unable to use its veto power against resolutions brought before the plenum for a vote.
Also, the Palestinians would like the vote to take place during the General Assembly in the last week of September, and for this there is no need for a great deal of preparation. The vote at the General Assembly could be called with as little as 24 hours notice.
A vote at the General Assembly is expected to end with a Palestinian victory and a large majority, as some 140 member states are expected to support recognition of a Palestinian state. Even though a General Assembly resolution is "weaker" than one by the Security Council, the Palestinians are comparing such a decision to Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, in which the General Assembly approved the plan to partition Palestine.
Senior Palestinian officials say that without the decision on dividing Palestine in 1947, Israel would not have had the international legitimacy to declare independence in May 1948.
Except that Israel could have done whatever it wanted in 1948 because the Arabs (there were no 'Palestinians' in 1948) rejected the partition plan and determined to drive the Jews into the sea. Moreover, Israel was admitted by the Security Council in 1949.
By the way, the rest of the quartet is blaming the United States for the 'Palestinians' pique.
Senior European diplomats said that the failure of the Quartet meeting pushed the Palestinians even more toward turning to the UN. They say that responsibility for the failure of the meeting lies with the United States, which proposed to the other Quartet members - the EU, the UN and Russia - a one-sided wording for an announcement that favored Israel and which had no chance of being accepted by the Palestinians.
The U.S. version did include mention of negotiations being based on the 1967 borders with an exchange of territory, however, it also included portions of the letter of President George Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which noted that the border changes would reflect the demographic changes on the ground since 1967. This implies the annexation of the settlement blocs to Israel.
"The Israelis pressured the U.S. very heavily and the American wording was too blatant and unbalanced," senior European sources said. "In the way things had been written there was no chance that the Palestinians would accept this."
European Union Foreign Policy head Catherine Ashton refused to accept the U.S. version and was joined by the Russians. She put forth a more moderate version, calling for negotiations on the principle of "two states for two peoples," with mention to Resolution 181 on the division of Palestine in 1947. "Unfortunately the Americans failed to convince the Israelis to accept this version," senior European diplomats said.
Did they really expect Israel to accept the 1947 partition lines more than 60 years after the Arabs rejected them? Even Livni couldn't accept that.
Sometimes the Arabs are so good at lying that they can no longer tell the difference between lies and the truth. Take, for example, this piece by Ali Halimeh, the 'Palestinian ambassador' to South Africa in Maan (Hat Tip: Eliana).
The two-state solution on the land of Palestine was the first international initiative to end the Arab-Zionist conflict, by voting in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the partition resolution No. 181, on 29 November 1947, without consulting or even notifying the Palestinians or the Arab world.
This led the international community to announce, a few months later, the establishment of Israel in May 1948. This gave Israel the right of statehood through full membership of international organizations, especially the United Nations, leaving the Palestinian people looking for their own state ever since.
Forget for a minute that the 1947 partition plan was not the 'first international initiative' to end the 'Arab-Zionist conflict.' Halimeh never heard of the Peel Commission, for example. But the idea that the 'Palestinians' (a name that then was used for the Jews!) or the Arab world were not consulted or notified of Resolution 181 is comical. And the way he glosses over how Israel became a member of the United Nations (no, it wasn't because of Resolution 181) is a total lie. Here's what really happened.
We've all heard the famous tape of the roll being called at the UN with the US and the Russians both voting yes while the Jew-hating Brits (not my British readers - the British government) vote no. Isn't that what gave the UN stamp of approval to the Jewish state?
No, it's not. And if you look below Marzouk's bunch of lies, you'll find a piece by John Bolton (at the same URL) that decimates the General Assembly argument.
Some, however, argue that there is precedent, citing General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, which endorsed a plan to partition the former British League of Nations mandate into Jewish and Arab states, and a "special international regime" for Jerusalem. They should read what the resolution actually says. Like all assembly resolutions, it is not legally binding. It simply "recommends" the partition plan in question, and "requests that the Security Council take the necessary measures" to implement it. The council never adopted the plan. Although the Jewish leadership accepted it, the Arabs did not, and a multi-front Arab assault followed. End of precedent.
On March 4, 1949, the Security Council adopted Resolution 69, recommending that Israel be admitted to the United Nations, by a vote of 9-1 (Egypt) with 1 abstention (the Brits). And on May 11, 1949, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 273(III), voting 37-12 with 9 abstentions to accept the Security Council recommendation and admit Israel as a member.
Yes, Israel was admitted to the UN just like everyone else, and not the way the 'Palestinians' are proposing to be admitted.
Halimeh is telling a lie in a bid to rewrite the manner in which nations are admitted to the United Nations. This sort of revisionist history needs to be stopped at every turn.
It is claimed that the truth has been reported abroad, but here in Israel, the media told us that 'all' the flytilla passengers wanted was to visit 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. In an interview with Arutz Sheva, David Bedein reported that's a lie. The true aim was to visit the locations of Arab villages from the pre-1948 period. But telling Israelis that would contradict the party line here that 'all' the Arabs want is Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The entire Fly-In was organized by an organization named Al Awda – The Return – and activists were equipped with accurate maps of locations within Israel that had become Jewish communities after 1948. These sites are not in Judea and Samaria, which were only liberated in 1967.
According to Bedein, the activists located descendants of Arabs who fled from these locations in 1948. The descendants live in the United States, Canada and Europe. They traveled with them to countries from which Israel does not require a visa and set out to Israel with the intent of holding demonstrations in Yafo, Lod, Tzfat and other locations.
The Israeli press has not made this information known to Israelis, he said, because it is intent upon deceiving Israelis into thinking the “Palestinians” just want Judea and Samaria.
Bedein also quotes Arab affairs expert Pinchas Inbari who estimated that come September, the PA intends to ask the United Nations for a state along 1947 UN Partition Plan boundaries. This may awaken some Israelis to the true aims of the PA, he said.
Bedein's interpretation contradicts information relayed by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which said the activists were looking to stir up trouble in Judea and Samaria.
After September, 'Palestinians' to push for '47 lines and beyond
Anyone who thinks that the 'Palestinians' are going to use a UN resolution recognizing their reichlet to make peace with Israel is either a fool or a knave. In fact, the 'Palestinians' are already laying the groundwork to try to build upon such a UN resolution to push Israel back to the 1947 partition lines (pictured above - they are even worse than the 1949 armistice lines as you may have gathered from the Abba Eban interview I posted earlier) or even beyond.
What the Palestinians really envisage after September is to exploit a UN endorsement of statehood to legitimize an escalation of the conflict. After having the 1967 lines recognized so as to negate the results of the Six-Day War, they plan to seek recognition of the 1947 partition lines.
There are signs that the long period of quiet since the Second Intifada is going to end after September or just before it, and that Abbas' Fatah organization is already preparing for the "Third Intifada." Ahmad Abu Ruteima, a Hamas activist in Gaza, describes the objective of the Third Intifada: "The struggle is about the very existence of Israel and not about the 1967 borders. The defense minister, Ehud Barak, confirmed that the [Israeli] army is incapable of confronting a human influx from all directions."
The post-September scenarios discussed in the upper Fatah echelons involve a return to the struggle. A senior member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Hatem Abd al-Qader, noted that in case Israel obstructs the Palestinians' political plans, Abbas will step down, the PA will dissolve itself, and nothing will prevent the Palestinians from returning to the struggle. And even if elections are held, the new president will come from the younger generation, abolish the Oslo agreements, and lead the Palestinians back to the struggle.
Why does the PLO so adamantly refuse any discussion of swaps between the Palestinian-populated areas in the Israeli Triangle region and the settlement blocs. The PLO, apparently, wants to leave the Palestinian-populated areas in Israel as an anchor for pushing Israel back to the 1947 borders or even further, as the territorial basis for exercising the right of return into Israel.
In his New York Times article, Abbas was straightforward: "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice."
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
