web analytics
October 2, 2014 / 8 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘PLO’

New PA Foreign Policy: Renew Iranian Ties to Threaten Israel

Saturday, February 8th, 2014

During a visit to Iran last week, Jibril Rajoub called for a return to armed resistance against Israel if Kerry’s peace talks fail, according to a report in Makor Rishon.

Armed Resistance is a euphemism for suicide bombers and other terror attacks, and Rajoub is one of the Palestinian Authority’s strongmen, as well as the current deputy chief of the Fatah (PLO) Central Committee.

During his visit, Rajoub met with the Iranian foreign minister Mohamad Juar Zarif.

The meeting signifies an end to the freeze between the Palestinian Authority and Iran that went on for many years.

On an “Al Alam” Iranian TV interview, Rajoub said that if the talks failed, “returning to armed resistance would be a good strategy for the Palestinians.” While the PA ambassador to Iran made sure to mention that the talks have reached a dead end.

No one from the Palestinian Authority denounced Rajoub’s pronouncements of renewed terror attacks, while Hamas responded and said the statement was a welcome positive change, and Islamic Jihad said they hoped [Palestinian Authority Prime Minister] Abu Mazen would visit Iran soon.

Abu Mazen released an official statement that, “It’s understood how important the renewal of ties with Iran are for the Palestinian nation.”

Israel has expressed concern that if a “Palestinian State” were to be created, they would immediately sign treaties with Israel’s enemies, such as Iran, and bring Iran onto the Israeli border.

It doesn’t look like they’re waiting for a state to do that.

Palestinian Negotiator: Kerry Plan Includes Israeli Withdrawals

Saturday, January 25th, 2014

Israeli negotiators are discussing a series of limited withdrawals linked to progress by the Palestinian Authority in maintaining security, a senior Palestinian official said.

The withdrawals are part of a plan for a peace agreement being brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, according to an interview with Yasser Abed Rabbo published in the London-based al-Hayat daily. Abed Rabbo said the concessions will include land in the Jordan Valley.

“There are talks on long-term security arrangements and standards [that would be] subject to so-called improved performance on security by the Palestinians, overseen by Israel,” said Abed Rabbo, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israel would determine “in the end, whether the desired level had been reached or not, although the Americans say they will be present and involved in evaluating this performance so that Israel will evacuate some areas, especially from the Jordan Valley.”

Speaking in broader terms, Abed Rabbo said “the plan proposes Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the establishment of the Palestinian capital in a part of East Jerusalem and solving the refugees problem in accordance with former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s vision.”

But Rabbo said there are considerable gaps between the positions of the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. Netanyahu ”is refusing to open the file on Jerusalem,” he said, while the Palestinian side is adamant in rejecting Israel’s demand that it be formally recognized as the Jewish state.

Clinton proposed Israel allow a small number of refugees, estimated at up to 100,000 people, to move into Israel.

According to Kerry’s plan, settlement blocs would remain under Israeli control as would border crossings and air space, though American and Jordanian troops would be present as well, Abed Rabbo said. Israel, he added, would retain the right to enter Palestinian territory in hot pursuit.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to discuss the progress of talks with Kerry on Friday in Davos, Switzerland, where both leaders are attending the annual World Economic Forum meeting.

A Palestinian State – Would it Further US Interests?!

Tuesday, January 14th, 2014

Secretary of State, John Kerry, is preoccupied with the attempt to establish a Palestinian state, as a means to advance peace and US interests. However, Congress – which is charged by the Constitution with supervising the Administration - has yet to conduct hearings on the impact of the proposed Palestinian state upon vital US interests.  Congress cannot relinquish its constitutional responsibility to probe, independently, the critical implications of a Palestinian state upon the US economy, core values, homeland and national security, as well as upon the stability of pro-US Arab regimes, in particular, and the Middle East in general.

Independent Congressional scrutiny of this Palestinian state-driven policy is doubly-essential against the backdrop of the systematic US Middle East policy failures since 1947.

The US Administration Track Record

In 1948, the US State Department opposed the establishment of a Jewish state. Assuming that Israel would be an ally of the Communist Bloc, and expecting Israel to be devastated by the invading Arab armies, the Administration imposed a regional military embargo, while the British supplied arms to Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

During the 1950s, the US Administration courted the Egyptian dictator, Nasser, in an attempt to remove him from Soviet influence, offering financial aid and pressuring Israel to “end the occupation of the Negev,” internationalize Western Jerusalem and evacuate the whole of Sinai. Instead, Nasser intensified his pro-USSR policy, subversion of pro-US Arab regimes and support of Palestinian terrorism.

During the 1970s and 1980s, until the invasion of Kuwait, the US Administration supported Saddam Hussein through an intelligence-sharing agreement, the transfer of sensitive dual-use US technologies and approval of five billion dollar loan guarantees.

In 1977, the Administration, initially, opposed the Begin-Sadat peace initiative, lobbied for an international conference, and finally jumped on the peace bandwagon.

In 1979, the Administration abandoned the Shah of Iran, facilitating the rise of Khomeini, which transformed Iran from a top ally of the US to its sworn enemy.

During 1993-2000, the Administration embraced Arafat as the harbinger of peace and democracy, elevating him to the Most Frequent Visitor to the White House.

In 2005 and 2006, the Administration encouraged the uprooting of Jewish communities from Gaza and the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian election, deluding itself that both would advance the cause of moderation, stability and peace.

In 2009, the Administration turned its back on pro-US Mubarak, facilitating the rise to power of the anti-US, transnational-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. In 2011, the Administration participated in the toppling of Gaddafi’s regime of terror, intensifying chaos in Libya, which has become an exporter of military systems to Muslim terrorist organizations. In 2013, the Administration handed Russia an unexpected Syrian bonus.  In 2014, the Administration has managed to instill panic in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, which are concerned about the US potentially transforming Teheran from a controllable tactical- to an uncontrollable strategic – threat.

 

Mahmoud Abbas’ Track Record

 

The background of Mahmoud Abbas, the Chairman of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority – ostensibly a moderate compared with Hamas – sheds light on the likely nature of the proposed Palestinian state.

Abbas speaks fluent Russian, as a result of his KGB training and Ph.D. thesis (Holocaust Denial) at Moscow University. He was the architect of PLO ties with the USSR and other ruthless communist regimes. In 1972, he oversaw the logistics of the Munich Massacre of eleven Israeli athletes. In the late 1950s, 1966 and 1970, he fled Egypt, Syria and Jordan because of subversion. During the 1970s and 1980s he participated in the Palestinian plundering of Southern Lebanon and the attempts to topple the central regime in Beirut, which triggered the 1976 Syrian invasion of Lebanon and a series of civil wars, causing some 200,000 fatalities and hundreds of thousands of refugees. In 1990, Abbas collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, despite Kuwait’s unique hospitality to 300,000 PLO-affiliated Palestinians. In 1993, he established the Palestinian Authority hate education system – a most effective production line of terrorists.

The Impact on the Middle East

During the October 1994 signing of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, top Jordanian military commanders urged their Israeli counterparts to refrain from establishing a Palestinian state, “lest it destroy the [pro-US] Hashemite regime.”  Coupled with a terror-dominated Iraq, it would initiate a domino scenario, sweeping Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil-producing Arab regimes, causing havoc to the supply and price of oil and devastating the US economy.

Abbas’ PLO was an early ally of Khomeini.  Moreover, following his 2005 replacement of Arafat, Abbas’ first visits were to Teheran and Damascus. A Palestinian state – whether controlled by the PLO or (most probably) Hamas – would provide Iran, as well as Russia, China and North Korea, improved access to the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, at the expense of the US.

In 1993, the Palestinian Authority was established by PLO graduates of terrorist bases in the Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Tunisia, generating a robust tailwind to global Islamic terrorism. It has become a major terror academy, exporting terrorists to Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, Africa and Europe. Thus, the Palestinian Authority has sustained the legacy of Abbas’ PLO, which has been the role model of international and Islamic terrorism, training worldwide terrorists in Jordan (1968-1970) and Lebanon (1970-1982).  The PLO introduced commercial aircraft hijacking, carried out the 1973 murder of the US Ambassador to the Sudan, and participated in the 1983 murder of 300 US Marines in Lebanon.

A Palestinian state would reward a regime which is referred to by much of its population as “Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah,” and has driven Christians away from Bethlehem. It would add another anti-US vote at the UN.

Both Hamas and the PLO follow in the footsteps of Palestinian leaders, who collaborated with Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, and currently with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and other rogue regimes.

Hence, the proposal to establish a Palestinian state proves that policy-makers are determined to learn from history by repeating – rather than avoiding – past dramatic blunders.

Thorough Congressional supervision could spare the US a blow to its economic and national security interests.

Czech Police Find Weapons at PA Home where Blast Killed Official

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014

Czech police found weapons at the Palestinian Authority mission in Prague where the PA ambassador was killed Wednesday after a safe he was handling exploded.

Police confirmed that “some weapons” were found but did not reveal any details on their type or number.

So far, the explosion has been written off as an accident that is not related to terror, and the assumption was that the safe was rigged to explode if someone tried to remove its contents, which may have been secret documents. However, that has changed dramatically with a statement by Palestinian Authority mission spokesman Nabil el-Fahel, quoted by the Ma’an PA news agency, that “the safe was pretty old, it was purchased in mid-1980s and according to our information there was no built-in anti-theft system.”

So maybe there really were explosives in the safe? But that doesn’t make sense because since when do PA officials handle explosives, especially when they are on a mission of peace with Israel?

The victim of the blast was new at his post, and the safe had been moved to the apartment from the former PLO offices in the Prague, but Palestinian Authority officials also fumbled their explanations on the background of the safe.  Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki said that the safe has not been in use for at least 20 years.

However, el-Fahel said the safe was in use on a “daily” basis” and that Malki may have been  referring to another safe, which is empty.

The plot thickens and answers, particularly about the weapons, probably will not be very clear.

Palestinian Authority Says US to Increase Aid to $440

Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

The United States will increase its aid to the Palestinian Authority by $14 million in 2014, bringing the American contributions to Mahmoud Abbas’ regime to $440 million, according to Maen Rashid Areikat, the PA’s chief representative in Washington.

He added that the funds will be funneled through United States Agency for International Development (USAID) except for $70 million that will be given directly to the Palestinian Authority.

The announcement came on the eve of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s return to Israel to pressure both the Palestinian Authority and Israel to make progress in discussions for establishing the Palestinian Authority as a country. Kerry brings with him a suitcase full of sticks and carrots to force both sides to cooperate with him, and financial aid is one of the biggest carrots on which he counting to keep Abbas munching and happy.

Perpetual War with Israel the Glue Holding Palestinians Together

Monday, December 30th, 2013

There is another bad agreement in the making under the patronage of the Obama Hope and Change Campaign in the Middle East. History has shown that failed hopes and high expectations can lead to dire consequences (Angola and Rwanda are each a case in point). The Madrid Conference of 1991 was followed by the 1993 Oslo Accords, which were heralded by the New York Times as “a triumph of hope over history,” but resulted in a lethal Intifada. More people died after the failed Oslo Accords than had done during the conflicts that preceded them.

Furthermore, negotiating a second peace agreement after a failed one is often more difficult and costly. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been multiple previous failed agreements. Between 1993 and 2001, Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have signed six different agreements aimed at bringing a lasting peace. The Palestinians failed to respond positively to the window of opportunity presented by the 1979 Camp David Accords which brought peace between Israel and Egypt. After that came the Jordanian-Israeli peace accord, which was followed by the Taba Agreement (known as Oslo II), the 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, August 2000 Camp David “Final Status” Summit, and the 2001 Taba Conference.

Israel and the Palestinians have mutually opposing national goals that cannot be reconciled. On both sides, these national goals enjoy a wide popular consensus. The Palestinian side is centered on an independent state from which it can launch and pursue a strategy aimed at eliminating Israel, the recapture of East Jerusalem and the removal of all the settlements. On the Israeli side, the consensus was always solidly against the return of the refugees and division of Jerusalem. The Palestinians insist on the Right of Return which effectively means the destruction of the Jewish State, and the Israelis, who agree to a two state solution, want to assure maximum security by controlling the land and the destinies of the Palestinians. Despite all good intentions it is almost impossible to overcome those contradictions, especially in an atmosphere of high mutual distrust and distrust of the go-between, the Obama administration.

To make matters even more complex, one must wonder why after 65 years of deplorable living conditions, poverty, and decades of existence under a so called “occupation”, a peace seeking moderate Palestinian leadership that does not deny the Holocaust (Mahmoud Abbas) and that rejects calls by Iran and Hamas to destroy Israel, has failed to emerge. It is clear to all that by now, 20 years since the Oslo agreement, the very last Israeli soldier posted in the Jordan Valley under whatever security arrangement, would have been long withdrawn. After all, Israel has proposed creating an international regime in an area of Jerusalem that included the Old City, and agreed to give the Palestinian Arabs 97 percent of the land area of the West Bank, but both were rejected as insufficient by the Palestinian. The Palestinians continued objection to Israeli security conditions must be reexamined therefore, as they may only be a cover up of a more sinister truth; the Palestinian leadership sees a better future in a continued state of war and continued “occupation.”

One must consider the possibility, as upsetting to some as it may be, that the Palestinian leadership considers a state of perpetual war with Israel a safer bet than a state of peace. Not ever having been a cohesive people, or having had a state, a continued state of war is the glue that holds the Palestinians together and may be considered by them as the safer choice. Paradoxically, a state of war and “occupation” provides the Palestinian leadership with the safety net necessary to hold on to and perpetuate the dictatorship, and the iron fist approach with which they govern their own people. A state of war is, after all, a familiar pattern with set in place mechanisms that impose a military-like rule and order, condone summary executions, and stifle dissent. It also generates profits, provides employment, and generates international support and sympathy. A continuous state of war against the Jews is a religious and moral imperative that is rooted in Islam and provides for a ready made propaganda machine.

The Day Mandela Went to Shul and Preached against Aliyah

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

One of the first things that Nelson Mandela did after being elected president of South Africa in 1994 was visit a synagogue and preach against aliyah at Cape Town’s Green and Sea Point Hebrew Congregation on the Shabbat after his election.

Here is an excerpt from JTA’s report:

“The congregants heard Mandela make an appeal from the pulpit for Jewish expatriates to return to South Africa.

“Pointedly excluding aliyah by saying he understands the Jewish community’s commitment to Israel, Mandela said, ‘We want those who left (for other countries) because of insecurity to come back and to help us to build our country.’

“He added that those who do not return should contribute their money and skills to South Africa.

“Mandela thanked the Jewish community for its contribution toward the development of South Africa and assured Jews they have nothing to fear from a government of national unity.

“He said he felt an affinity with the Jewish community, since it was a Jewish firm that gave him an apprenticeship in the early days of his law career, when discrimination was rife.

“He also said that he had befriended his Jewish defense counsel during the treason trial which led to his imprisonment in the 1950s and that he was still in contact with the lawyer.

“He stated that he recognizes the right to existence of the State of Israel, along with the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland.

“He noted that he considered it significant that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat last week signed an agreement in Cairo implementing Palestinian self-rule — the same week that South Africa elected its new leadership.

“At the reception following the service, some of the younger members of the congregation raised clenched fists in solidarity with the ANC, while the shul choir led in the singing of the country’s new national anthem, “Nkosi Sikelel’ IAfrika.”

Mandela often said Israel should be a “secure“ state, but on the other hand, his citing the Palestinian-Israel conflict as dating back to 1948 clearing showed his definition of “secure” as twisted.

He wrote Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in 1991, “You incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967…. You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established ‘normally’ and happened to occupy another country in 1967.

“Palestinians are not struggling for a ‘state’ but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.”

Arabs in Judea and Samaria, who did not refer themselves as “Palestinians,” never ”struggled” for freedom under the Ottoman Empire, under the British Mandate and under the Jordanian occupation.

It was only when Jews re-established the modern State of Israel that they “struggled,” not for freedom but rather for the annihilation of Israel.

That explains how Mandela, more blind than the blindest American Secretary of State, could proclaim that Iran had no aggressive aims towards Israel. “We are indebted to the Islamic Revolution,” he one said while laying a wreath at the grave of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose idea of freedom meant a world free of Israel.

Mandela not only called Israel an “apartheid state” but also asserted that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was not a terrorist group.

He publicly supported violence against Israel during a visit to Yasser Arafat in Gaza in 1999, when he declared. “All men and women with vision choose peace rather than confrontation, except in cases where we cannot proceed, where we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/archives-the-day-mandela-went-to-shul-and-preached-against-aliyah/2013/12/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: