web analytics
August 30, 2014 / 4 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘PLO’

PA Threatens to Break ‘Peace Talk’ Rules and Go to United Nations

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

It didn’t take very long for the Palestinian Authority to threaten to break the ground rules of the resumed talks, which calls for a nine-month period in which  chairman Mahmoud Abbas will not go back to his tactic of circumventing discussions with Israel by appealing to the United Nations to condemn Israel.

Palestinian Authority spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi said Wednesday that Israel is “deliberately destroying the chances of success for these talks” by accelerating settlement activities, the Beirut Daily Star reported.

The PA has protested Israeli announcements since the resumption of talks to build more homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria and in Jerusalem areas claimed by the PA.

“These are not just dots on a map,” said Ashrawi. “These are willful and destructive measures to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.”

The other side of the coin is that freezing construction for Jews would be a measure to contribute to Arab efforts to prevent the existence of a Jewish state, which  chairman Mahmoud Abbas refuses to define as Israel.

Ashrawri is one of the most intellectual voices in the Palestinian Authority and also sits on the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which defines future PA borders as all of the Land of Israel.

So much for the two-state solution.

Concerning Israel’s building projects in, she stated, “If Israel carries out these plans… we will be forced to recourse to international judicial processes through international institutions.”  She made her remarks to reporters in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, a “settlement” by the definition of the Palestinian Authority and the West.

“We are not prepared to make the same mistakes and to have talks for their own sake as Israel continues [to build].”

Young Netanyahu: No to Independent Terror State

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

Excerpts from “Fighting Terrorism”, 2001 Edition, by Benjamin Netanyahu, page 119-120.

Understandably, many Israelis do not want to see that [Gaza] base expanded twenty times to include the West Bank, thereby having an Iranian-influenced Islamic domain hovering over its major cities, and within 10 miles of the sea.

Such a PLO-Hamas state would sooner or later threaten to topple the pro-Western Hashemite regime in Jordan, the majority of whose population is composed of Palestinian Arabs, many of them susceptible to the fundamentalist message.

A Palestinian-Islamic state on the West Bank of the Jordan River might soon expand to the East Bank as well (i.e. the present state of Jordan).

Above all, a PLO-Hamas state is likely to eventually deteriorate into a new avatar of the PLO terror state in Lebanon, which was responsible for the exportation of terror far beyond the Middle East…

It might take several years for such a state to reveal its true nature. It might first wish to build up its power, adopting a relative docile outward appearance to continue receiving Western aid and Israeli concessions. But the underlying irredentist and terrorist impulses are at the core of its political ideology and raison d’etre  are unfortunately not likely to disappear.

Even now it is possible to correct the mistakes which the Labor government has made in its efforts to appease Palestinian terror.

Stability may be achieved and terrorism put on the defensive if Israel reassumes responsibility for its own security and asserts a policy of local autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs instead of the independent terror-free zones (editor:  state) now being built.

It will take some time for the rest of the world to understand what many in Israel now know: that far from producing the durable peace all Israelis yearn for, the continued expansion if an armed Palestinian domain is merely a stepping-stone to the eventual escalation of conflict and the continued march of Islamic militancy in the Middle East and beyond.

 

Today’s Syria Is Tomorrow’s Palestine

Monday, July 22nd, 2013

It’s become apparent to all that Syria is the natural Arab state. Without a strong and powerful leader, anarchy and internecine murder swiftly develops.

This is not because Arabs are primitive, though in part it is because Islam is fundamentally a violent religion. The real reason is that the Arabs are not really one people, as the root word in Hebrew “Arev” attests to. Arev translates as mixture. The Arabs are in reality a mix of distinct sects, tribes and clans who don’t really like one another. When they are supposedly unified, it is only because a strong leader temporarily suppresses their independent identities and locks them together under his strong thumb.

Arab state after state proves this to be true.

This brings us to our first obvious question about the current peace process….

1) Who does Abbas actually represent in the peace talks? While Abbas controls the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, he doesn’t control the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, as that is under control of a different group – a competing terrorist gang that not only doesn’t he speak for, but a gang who is prepared to overthrow him once conditions are right.

Abbas also doesn’t have the support of the Chamulot, the traditional clan and tribes, who despise him, and would also overthrow Abbas in a second if given the chance.

So if Israel negotiates with Abbas, when the reality is that he doesn’t represent Gaza, when he doesn’t represent the Chamulot, and in fact, since there haven’t been elections, we don’t even know if he represents the rest of the Arab citizens he rules, and he is likely to be overthrown soon, what value does his signature have?

The answer is nothing.

That brings us to the second question…

2) What will keep the “West Bank” from turning into Syria? As we pointed out above, the so-called “Palestinians” are a mixture of different religious sects, tribes and clans, and Bedouin too, who all hate each other, if God forbid, Israel were to pull out the IDF further, we will quickly see a repeat of the Hamas takeover in Judea and Samaria. But this will end up as messy as Syria, when all the groups will start to kill each other to take over. The “West Bank” would quickly deteriorate, and it would be as if we had listened to Shimon Peres as his idiotic ideas to give away the Golan to Syria – pointless and dangerous.

What will stop this Syria-like collapse in the “West Bank”?

Again, the answer is nothing.

And that brings us to our third question and final question…

3) Why in the world would Abbas even want to make peace, when he knows that as soon as he does, his dead, mangled, and cannibalized carcass will be hauled through Bethlehem’s Manger Square by one of the many sects, clans, and tribes that want him dead, and will use this as an opportunity to attempt a coup?

The answer is, he does not.

Reaching peace in these peace talks is the last thing Abbas wants or needs. Ignoring for a moment that he will never obtain the terms of agreement that his cohorts and various friends and enemies are demanding, reaching a true peace agreement means his death, and no further access to his Swiss bank accounts.

For Abbas (or any other future “Palestinian” leader), nothing is better than the current situation. The continuation of the conflict provides him a lifeline (and access to his Swiss bank accounts).

What Abbas does need to get out of this, is a strengthening of his position vis a vis Hamas. The only subject of tangible value for him is the release of terrorists and baby killers.

“Palestinian” society is so sick, that the value they hold most dear, is the value of murdering Jewish babies, and those who murder Jewish women and children are their society’s heroes.

That is why releasing these baby-killers is their first and most non-negotiable demand.

That is why Abbas made it a requirement for talking peace.

Abbas expects nothing else from the talks. He wants nothing to succeed from the talks, but if he is being forced to talk, he can at least demand the one concession that he knows from experience Israel will give him that will temporarily buttress his position as the “Palestinian” leader before the talks collapse.

Prisoners Have Great Ideological and Religious Value

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

One of today’s PLO preconditions for negotiation with Israel — they change frequently — is for a release of “all Palestinian prisoners.” For example, the Times of Israel reported today that

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year offered to free 50 Palestinian security prisoners who have been held since before the Oslo Accords of the early 1990s, in a bid to get Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to come back to the peace table, The Times of Israel has learned.

However, Abbas rejected the offer.

Today, a senior Palestinian official told The Times of Israel, the Palestinians might agree to renew talks with Israel if Netanyahu releases all 107 of the pre-Oslo veterans still in jail, most of whom have blood on their hands.

The Prime Minister’s Office had no comment on the matter.

It’s important to understand that these demands are more than just an attempt by the PLO to get a concession from Israel without giving anything in return (although it is assuredly that).

Although the Arabs and their supporters will refer to these individuals as ‘political prisoners’, they have by and large been convicted of serious violent crimes, especially including murder. They are not imprisoned simply for their politics.

The demand for the release of prisoners is of great ideological and religious significance. In the PLO’s secular/postcolonialist Palestinian narrative, the Jews have no legitimacy in ‘Palestine,’ and therefore do not have the right to imprison Arabs, the true ‘owners’ of the land. In addition, violent terrorism is the natural right of an ‘oppressed people’ trying to free themselves from colonialists.

From the standpoint of the Islamist Hamas, the actions of the prisoners constitute defensive jihad against Jews usurping land which is an Islamic waqf. Far from being criminals, they are heroes for doing their Allah-commanded duty.

For both groups the release of the prisoners would also humiliate the Jews, who would not be able to revenge themselves on the killers of their relatives (incidentally, this is another reason Israel should implement a death penalty for terrorist murder).

And both see themselves as fighting to reestablish Arab (as well as tribal and family) honor by recovering the possessions ‘stolen’ from them in the nakba of the founding of the Jewish state.

The release of these prisoners, therefore, would be a great victory and encouragement for the Palestinian cause, even if the prisoners themselves are no longer useful in the struggle. Expect a massive celebration when the ‘heroes’ return home.

As often happens, pragmatic Israelis miss the significance of ideology. The report continues:

It is understood that the Israeli security establishment has no objections on security grounds to the release of the 107 pre-Oslo veterans, particularly in light of the release of 1,027 Palestinian security prisoners to Hamas as part of the deal that saw the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from Hamas captivity in Gaza in October 2011.

We can quibble about this, especially since some of those released in the Shalit deal did return to terrorist activity. But even if this is entirely true, the security aspect is only a small part of the significance of releasing Arabs that have murdered Jews.

The correct approach would be to apply the death penalty to murderers, and to imprison the others — and keep them imprisoned — under humiliating conditions.

If Israel would like to end Arab terrorism, the way to do it is by removing the incentives, not by making it pay.

Visit Fresno Zionism.

Kerry’s Embarrassing ‘Peace Process’ Obsession

Thursday, June 6th, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

There’s an old saying: it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it. That is Secretary of State John Kerry’s problem.

What is remarkable is how Kerry has painted himself into a corner, not just staking his term as secretary of state on making Israel-Palestinian peace but in doing so in a matter of weeks.

“If we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance,” Kerry told the American Jewish Committee.  “I have heard all of the arguments for why it is too difficult to end this conflict,” he added. “Cynicism has never solved anything. It has never given birth to a state, and it won’t.”

Well, not exactly. First, Kerry is practically begging the Palestinian Authority to accept a state. The problem is not cynicism but naivete. The cynicism is based on long experience and a careful evaluation of the political, economic, and strategic factors involved.

Second, Kerry hasn’t heard that the last chance already happened thirteen years ago at the Camp David meeting in 2000. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise. In fact, that endangers people.
Let’s review:

–PLO, Palestinian Authority, and Fatah leader Yasir Arafat turned down an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem and around $20 billion in aid as a starting point in further talks.

–He launched a five-year-long war of terror against Israel in which around 2000 Israelis were killed.

–When offered an even better deal by President Bill Clinton Arafat turned it down.

–Even when besieged in his headquarters—saved only by U.S. intervention from total, humiliating defeat—Arafat still rejected compromise.

–In the 13 years since the Camp David meeting the Palestinians have not pursued any serious negotiations.

–About half the territory and people the Palestinian Authority claims to negotiate for is not even under its control but is being ruled by Hamas which advocates genocide against the Jews and is totally opposed to peace on any terms. Hamas would do everything possible to wreck any deal made by the PA and that group has about 20 to 30 percent support on the West Bank.

–In the present climate of Islamist triumphalism, Hamas has more state support than the PA and the PA is terrified of being “traitorous moderates.”

–The PA strategy is clearly to get maximal recognition of a state without having to make a deal with Israel. Kerry’s recent offer of $4 billion (for tourism development!)–how much will the U.S. government pay off the PA for pretending to negotiate?–was turned down by the PA within 24 hours even though they could use the money for the leadership’s Swiss bank accounts.

Might some of these facts be relevant?

Kerry gave the typical line that unless Israel gets a two-state solution, it will have to choose between its Jewish and democratic nature.

Ludicrously untrue. If that didn’t happen when Israel occupied the whole of the territories captured by it in 1967 and governed the Arabs there on a daily basis—a period of 27 years in the West Bank and about 35 in the Gaza Strip—it isn’t going to happen now. There was a time when Israelis advocated annexation of these territories but that hasn’t been true for many years. Of course, Israel will not have to choose.

Who cares about how many Palestinians there are, they aren’t being ruled by Israel and they are not Israeli citizens.
Absent as usual from Kerry’s analysis are the risks that Israel would take if it accepted a Palestinian state under current conditions.

Consider these statements by Kerry:

The belief that a security fence and the status quo could bring Israel security are “lulling themselves into a delusion….The absence of peace is perpetual conflict. … We will find ourselves in a negative spiral of responses and counter-responses….”

The problem, however, is an unspoken premise that if the status quo changed and there was an independent Palestinian state, the conflict would go away and there would be full peace. In fact what would happen is that the conflict would continue under worse strategic conditions for Israel.

“I am confident that both sides are weighing the choices that they have in front of them very, very seriously.”
No. Both sides are pretending to weigh choices in order to avoid insulting you. A serious analysis of the factors involved show that nothing is going to happen. An accurate view of reality should be the foundation for policymaking.

A case can be made for Kerry showing himself as working hard for peace in order to defuse any possible effect on events elsewhere in the region. But by working too hard, spending too much of his time on the issue, and making absurd claims that he is going to succeed, Kerry is setting himself up for an embarrassing fall.

Also by promising quick results he is destroying the chance for the United States to pretend it is laboring around the clock supposedly–what?–to ease the situation with a civil war in Syria, a nuclear bomb in Iran, a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, etc.

The Blood Libel Begins: The Guardian’s Original Reporting on Al Dura

Monday, May 20th, 2013

Today, an Israeli Government Review Committee published a long-awaited report on the Mohammed Al Durah incident, determining that the Palestinian boy was in fact not harmed by Israeli forces and did not die in the exchange of fire on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza.

The Israeli committee arrived at the conclusion which had been reached by other serious observers who have studied the incident (and its tragic consequences) over the years: The incident was in all likelihood a hoax.

The report was released just three days before a French court is to rule on a defamation case involving the producer who broke the story for France 2, Charles Enderlin, and the French media analyst who accused Enderlin of fabricating the story, Philippe Karsenty.  (You can learn more about the background, evidence, and consequences of the Al Durah incident here.)

The following is my fisking of the original report in the Guardian on the Al Durah incident, written by Suzanne Goldenberg and published on Oct. 3, 2000 and titled ‘Making of a martyr”:

goldberg

Suzanne Goldenberg begins her Oct. 3, 2000 Guardian account of an incident which had taken place three days earlier, near the Netzarim Junction in Gaza, ‘Making of a martyr’, thus:

A circle of 15 bullet holes on a cinder block wall, and a smear of darkening blood. That is what marks the spot where a terrified 12-year-old boy spent his final moments, cowering in his father’s arms, before he was hit by a final shot to the stomach, and slumped over, dead. Those last minutes in the life of Mohammed al-Durrah, captured in sickening detail by a Palestinian cameraman working for French TV, have taken on a power of their own. His death, aired around the world on Saturday night, has become the single searing image of these days of bloody rioting.

Goldenberg, as with nearly every journalist who reported on the incident, was relying entirely on a one minute, deceptively edited, France 2 video, as well as uncorroborated Palestinian “eyewitness” accounts.

While the the video purported to show the boy’s final moments – filmed by stringer named Talal Abu Rama, and which was cut by France 2 producer Charles Enderlin – the last few seconds showed a clearly alive boy lifting his hands and peeking out through his fingers and then slowly putting his arm down.

There is no video or still photos – despite the numerous journalists at the scene – of the boy being carried away in a stretcher, or being loaded onto an ambulance.

Additionally, despite claims that the IDF fired on the boy and his father for 40 minutes – which somehow only managed to produce a dozen or so bullet holes in the wall and barrel – and supposedly died of a stomach wound, it evidently didn’t seem odd to Goldberg that there was only a “smear” of blood?

Goldenberg:

The pictures of Mohammed’s death seemed not just to encapsulate the horror of these last five days but also to have become its motor.

Though more Palestinians have been killed since Mohammed’s death – including a two-year-old yesterday – it is his image that haunts Israel. For all of the claims of the prime minister, Ehud Barak, and other officials that their soldiers only fire to protect Israeli lives, Mohammed’s death seems an irrefutable reply.

Here, any semblance of objective reporting is shrewn to pieces. Not only in the last sentence of this passage is Goldberg determining Israeli guilt in the boy’s death, but imputing malice to the entire army – all based on 63 seconds of video.

Goldenberg:

By the end of the weekend the evidence was pointing to a still more chilling conclusion: that the 12-year-old boy and his father were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers.

The blood libel begins.

Goldenberg has now established – a mere four days following the incident – that the 12-year-old Palestinian child was deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers.

Caught in a burst of firing, the pair sought shelter behind a concrete water butt, about 15 yards to the east of the Palestinian post, diagonally opposite the Israeli position. The father gestured frantically towards the Israelis, as if pleading with them to stop firing. They did not.

Red Cross Bares Its Heart and Soul, Honors PA Terrorists

Sunday, May 12th, 2013

The International Red Cross together with the Palestinian Red Crescent in Jenin planted 150 trees bearing the names of “veteran prisoners” who were convicted and jailed for murdering Israelis.

Most foreign and local media call them “militants,” reserving the word terrorists for those who kill people for political gain in a media outlet’s home country.

The Palestinian Authority now has helped the Red Cross add another word to the Orwellian Middle East dictionary: “Veteran prisoners.”

The official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reported last week that the Red Cross and Red Crescent “planted 150 fruit trees that carry the names of the veteran prisoners jailed in the occupation prisons.” The article was translated and published on Sunday by the Palestinian Media Watch.

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida told its readers that the two organizations “conducted a ceremony called ‘My Honor is My Freedom’ in the village of Zububa to mark the 150th anniversary of their founding. Fruit trees were planted at the entrance to the village, where the racist annexation and expansion wall that has swallowed up thousands of acres [of land] was built.”

The Red Cross has a very cozy relationship with the Palestinian Authority, where the Red Crescent has long been a member of the international organization. Israel’s Magen David rescue services were not accepted by the International Federation of Red Cross until 2005, but on a condition: Magen David has to agree not to operate in Judea and Samaria or areas in Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority.

Displaying the Jewish Star of David, the translation of the term Magen David and the symbol used on its ambulances, would suggest that the Red Cross, God forbid, acknowledges that Jews can live in Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem.

The Red Cross, in its devotion to protecting the rights of prisoners under the Geneva Convention, dutifully makes sure that Israel opens its jails to relatives of jailed Palestinian Authority terrorists.

It took an entirely different attitude during the five heart-wrenching years that Hamas held Gilad Shalit hostage after kidnapping him in a terrorist attack in 2006 that left two other soldiers murdered. The Red Cross went through the motions of demanding his release but did not place any pressure on the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority to work for his freedom.

Shalit’s father Gilad said during his son’s captivity, “We demand that the Red Cross’ approach be more active and decisive. I would like to believe that they would give us a sign of life from Gilad. We are conducting ongoing dialogue with the Red Cross but it has not been much help. I did not hear them condemn Hamas on its crime against Gilad. The Red Cross has been a complete failure in this affair.”

It took the Red Cross almost five years until it made a belatedly public appeal for his release. When Shalit was released, the Red Cross did not even examine him.

The Red Cross also took no action against the Red Crescent and the Palestinian Authority’s assisting terrorism in the early part of this century, during the advanced stage of the Intifada that is also called the “Second Intifada” and the “Oslo War.”

IDF occasionally foiled terrorist attacks by inspecting Red Crescent ambulances before allowing them to continue from Judea and Samaria into urban Israel. More than once, soldiers discovered explosives and weapons under the beds of supposedly pregnant women, a gross violation of international law.

This did not stop the Red Cross from honoring the “prisoners.”

If anyone questions that they really are terrorists, check out the background of such “veteran prisoners” as Karim and Maher Younes, Issa Abd Rabbo, Osama Al-Silawi, Mohammed Turkeman, Nasser Abu Surour and Mahmoud Abu Surour, Zaid Younes, Ibrahim Al-Taqtuq, Ikram Mansour, Ahmed Ka’abna, Nael and Fakhri Barghouti and Samir Kuntar, Jamal Hweil, Jamal Tirawi and Jum’a Adam.

The name “Kuntar” should ring a bell.

Born in Lebanon, he joined the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with the stated goal of killing Jews.

At the age of 16, he helped kidnap an Israeli family from Nahariya, on the northeast Mediterranean Coast. He murdered four people, including a 4-year-old daughter, in the presence of her father, who also was killed. He was cited as a hero by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/red-cross-bares-its-heart-and-soul-honors-pa-terrorists/2013/05/12/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: