The lying deceitful Palestinians

The Palestinian deception
Op-ed: Palestinians speak language of peace to West, preach hate and war in Arabic
Yochanan Visser, Sharon Shaked
Published: 12.28.11, 11:10 / Israel Opinion


Eighteen years have passed since the signing of the Oslo accords, and it seems justifiable to reach the conclusion that there will be no final-status agreement that will solve the Arab Israeli conflict in the foreseeable future.

The recent reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas – including the announcement that Hamas will join the PLO - is further evidence that Mahmoud Abbas was never sincere in pursuing a peace agreement with Israel.

New Mideast?
Hamas is changing / Raphael Mimoun
Op-ed: Israel should consider new strategy towards increasingly pragmatic Hamas movement
Full story
Now that the chimera of a “peace process” has been exposed, the time has come to finally face the truth.

The Palestinian leadership has deceived Israel and the international community by speaking the language of “peace” to Western English-speaking audiences, while continually preaching hate and war to their own people in Arabic.

Duplicity and deceit have long concealed the true intentions of the Palestinian Authority, but its most recent actions and rhetoric have definitively revealed that it is not truly interested in peace and reconciliation with the Jewish state.

'Intelligent resistance'
A recent example of Palestinian deception is the manner in which the PA officially explains its refusal to negotiate with Israel.

The decision not to negotiate has been presented as a result of the Israeli insistence on building in the settlements while, in reality, the deadlock is the result of a revised policy that the PA adopted more than two years ago.

This revised policy was discussed by the Palestine Strategy Group and formed the basis for the 13th program of the Palestinian Authority published in 2009.

The program calls for "intelligent resistance" – meaning law fare, boycott campaigns and propaganda – as a means of continuing the struggle against Israel.

While terror has always been the main Palestinian weapon against Israel, under Abbas’ leadership the strategy changed, and political warfare has proven to be more successful in winning over the international community to the Palestinian cause.

But there is more. Other factors, which were not openly discussed by the Palestinians, contributed significantly to the failure of the peace process.

The absence of truth in Palestinian politics and society is one of those factors. Jihad or Ribat (a religious war for Allah), and Islamic anti-Semitism (including incitement against Jews and Israel) are the others.

Confusing the world
Ever since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, deception has been a tactic to confuse Israel and the rest of the world.

Conflicting reports about the meaning of Hamas’ membership in the PLO issued recently by Fatah and Hamas leaders are the latest example of this tactic of deception, which is called al-Taqiyya and is primary based on the Koran.

According to the authoritative Arab text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam, “Taqiyyah (deception) is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it…Taqiyyah is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

Muhammad first practiced Taqiyyah during the Battle of the Trench (627AD,) which pitted his army against several non-Muslim tribes known as “the Confederates.”

Arafat referred repeatedly to the use of Taqiyyah by Muhammad when he spoke about the Oslo accords to Islamic audiences.

'We will drive them out'
Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders.

On April 9th 2008 he told NBN TV the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota….The PLO proceeds through phases…..Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.

The same Zaki said the following this year on Lebanon TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end."

He then said: "It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself."

Mahmoud Abbas is less outspoken but is no less involved in deceiving the international community. Take for example an interview with European reporters about the unity agreement with Hamas two weeks ago, in which he said the following:

"We set the agreement's pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance.” Peaceful resistance?

Well, when Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza the same week, Hamas PM Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem He also said the following:

“We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the River (Jordan.) God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.

Water issues
Deception and incitement have also been the hallmark of the way Palestinians inform the world about the day-to-day situation in the West Bank and in Gaza.

This summer our organization, Missing Peace, revealed that the PA continually lies about water issues in the West Bank in order to advance the narrative of Israeli repression and Palestinian victimhood.

Additionally, the PA has actually failed to implement approved water projects and ignored undeniable evidence of Palestinian water theft.

Reports by individual Palestinian citizens or Palestinian NGOs often contain similar false claims.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Media Watch just published a book titled Deception, which documents the hate, incitement and promotion of violence by PA officials and media.

The book also demonstrates how the Palestinian public, and especially children, are brainwashed into believing the most outrageous lies about Palestinian history, Israel and the Jews.

The book also recounts a meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and president Obama in the White House on June 9, 2010. During that meeting Abbas said:

“And I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that.”

Until now, large parts of the international community have ignored the evidence about the Palestinian deception and insist that the conflict is about territorial claims. Yet it is not. This conflict is about the existence of a Jewish state in the Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam).


The EU even raised its contribution to the PA by €100 million for 2012 and keeps admonishing Israel for building activities in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

If foreign interlocutors like the EU are serious about ending the conflict they should first insist that the PA end incitement and confront the clear pattern of deception by Palestinian leaders.

Yochanan Visser is the Director of Missing Peace Middle East News and writer of 'Israel indicted' a recently published book about the cognitive war against Israel (Dutch language) www.missingpeace.eu

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

Don't believe lies that hamas will accept Israel www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com

Hamas leader Haniyeh:
Goal is destruction of Israel in stages


Abbas:
Hamas agrees to '67 borders
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6024

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik



At a ceremony marking the 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:



"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."



Click to view

In his speech, Haniyeh also promised that Hamas will "lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine - all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allah Akbar and praise Allah."



Two days later, contradicting Haniyeh's statements, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas leader abroad Khaled Mashaal had agreed that:



- "There will be no military resistance."
- "The permanent solution is on the '67 borders."



According to Abbas, Hamas agrees to a permanent solution on the '67 borders. However, Haniyeh said that Hamas agrees to a temporary solution on the '67 borders as a first stage only.

For many years, the PLO promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel.

Senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."


Click to view



The following are longer excerpts of the statements mentioned above:



Speech by Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas at ceremony marking 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas:
"We welcome you today, on this anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas, as you renew the promise and oath of loyalty with Allah, with His Messenger and with His believers; you are renewing the loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs and the path of resistance and Jihad upon the blessed land of Palestine...
We say today, explicitly, so it cannot be explained otherwise, that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel] from the blessed land of Palestine. The Hamas movement will lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine - all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allah Akbar and praise Allah. We say with transparency and in a clear manner, that Palestinian reconciliation - and all sides must know this - cannot come at the expense of [our] principles, at the expense of the resistance. These principles are absolute and cannot be disputed: Palestine - all of Palestine - is from the sea to the river. We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine. The involvement of Hamas at any stage with the interim objective of liberation of [only] Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem, does not replace its strategic view concerning Palestine and the land of Palestine."

Gingrich points out FALSE narrative of Palestinians

The Gingrich Syndrome

By: Yedidya Atlas

In 1949, Princeton University Press, published the Fifth Revised Printing, of the original 1943 history book “The Arabs: A Short History” by Professor Philip Khuri Hitti, Professor of Semitic Languages and Chairman of the Department of Oriental Languages at Princeton University. Credited with almost single handedly created the discipline of Arabic Studies in the United States, Hitti, born in Ottoman Syria (now modern day Lebanon), was the preeminent scholar of Islam and the Arab world of his day.
It seems that some people (including some in the media) have short memories...
Ilana

A proponent of the Arab cause against the Jews and Zionism, Hitti was the first Arab to testify against the Partition Plan at the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, where he took Ben-Gurion to task for his testimony about “Palestine” (referring to the Jews). Hitti declared: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” And in fact, in the aforementioned “The Arabs: A Short History” there is no mention of whatsoever of an Arab “Palestinian People” even though the particular volume in this writer’s possession was printed in 1966. Despite its numerous revisions, including after the founding the 1948 founding of the State of Israel, Professor Philip K. Hitti, a world renowned spokesman for the Arab cause for many years, made no revision to include the now oft-mentioned Arab “Palestinian People” in later editions of his book on Arab history.

In fact, the name “Palestine”, or “Palaestina” in Latin, originated in the second century C.E., after the Roman occupiers crushed the Jewish revolt of Bar Kochba. In an effort to subsequently wipe out Jewish connection to the Land, the Romans renamed the occupied Jewish Land of Israel as“Syria Palaestina” (after “Philistina” – the land where the Philistines, ancient enemies of the Jewish People, had dwelled in what is today Israel’s coastal plain and Gaza) and considered southern Syria, ruled by a Roman Governor in Damascus. Jerusalem was renamed “Aelia Capitolina”, Shechem, which had, like Jerusalem, been burnt to the ground and rebuilt by the Romans was renamed “Neapolis” (or “the New City” in Latin). Owing to the lack of the letter “P” in Arabic, “Palestine”, is today referred to by Arabs as “Filastin”, and the Arab name for Jewish Shechem, “Nablus” was another Arab mispronunciation of the Roman name Neapolis.

In brief, the name of the nationality of the so-called Arab “Palestinian People” is not even derived from their own language, Arabic. They have no distinctive national history, culture or even cuisine that distinguishes them from other Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. No one can name the first, last, or any Arab Palestinian king, during the long centuries they falsely claim to have existed prior to the return en masse of the Jews to the Biblical Land of Israel in the past 200 years. Hence, Arab Palestinian national existence is demonstratively a recent development at best.

So the responses to the recent remarks of former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, regarding the historical bona fides, or lack thereof, of the “Palestinian People” is more telling than the actual remarks.
After all, what did he say?
“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the early 20th century. I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israelnow since the 1940s, and it's tragic.”
Mr. Gingrich, who has a PhD. in history and taught it at the college level for a number of years prior to his decades long political career, has sufficient academic credentials for one to assume he has read at least a few serious books in his life on the subject, and can easily document the accuracy of his declaration. Moreover, as proven above, he didn’t say anything all that earth shattering per se.
The Palestinian Arab leadership, of course, challenged the veracity of the Gingrich remarks with the usual oft-repeated falsehoods:
"Our people have been here since the very beginning and are determined to stay on their land until the very end." And that Gingrich was “denying historical facts.” (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad)
Also, of course, they labeled Mr. Gingrich, as “ignorant and racist” for challenging the politically correct albeit false Palestinian narrative.
Unsurprisingly, some media outlets attempted to undercut the historical accuracy of the Gingrich remarks. The Reuters report included the following paragraph:
“Most historians mark the start of Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment in 1834, when Arab residents of the Palestinian region revolted against Ottoman rule.”
The key words being, of course, “most historians” in an effort to convince the reader that Gingrich’s statement was really just politically motivated and not a well documented historical fact. In reality said “most historians”is really the politically correct wishful thinking of two of Israel’s leftist “new historians” Baruch Kimerling and Joel Migdal in their book “The Palestinian People: A History” (Harvard University Press, 2003). There they write:
“The tough rule and new reforms led to the 1834 revolt’s outbreak in the heart of the country, uniting dispersed Bedouins, rural sheiks, urban notables, mountain fellaheen, and Jerusalem religious figures against a common enemy. It was these groups who would later constitute the Palestinian people.” (pp.3-20, p.7)
The “common enemy” was the Egyptian forces led by Ibrahim Pasha that had conquered much of the country in 1830 from Ottoman rule. The baseless assertion that “these groups who would later constitute the Palestinian people” is vacuous at best, if not deliberate false propaganda to lend credence to the “Palestinian People” myth propagated by Israel’s enemies in an effort to challenge the well documented Jewish connection to the Land. And although even Kimmerling and Migdal don’t buy into the official false history of today’s Palestinian Arab propaganda machine, their book nonetheless, achieved its purpose since it gives Reuters and other media outlets the “academic” basis to muddy the waters of historical accuracy and give the false impression that these issues are in dispute and Mr. Gingrich and anyone who agrees with his statement is in the minority and assumedly with a politically motivated bias against the “poor Palestinians.”
Much has been written in the past week or so in defense of Mr. Gingrich’s historically accurate assertions by top columnists in both Israel and theUnited States, but what no one discusses is the “true sin” of Mr. Gingrich. It is not merely that he has publicly noted that the “Palestinian Arab emperor” has no clothes, but that he, who may well be the next president of the United States, has, in essence, argued that documented truth, and not a politically correct false version of a so-called narrative, should be the basis of the reality upon which negotiations take place. In brief, that the so-called “Israel-Palestinian Conflict” is not a level playing field with equal moral and historical claims to a “disputed” Land.
He didn’t challenge the rights of the parties to negotiate a solution acceptable to both parties. He simply asserted that truth counts in policy making. What a remarkable idea!
The criticism leveled at Mr. Gingrich by even his fellow Republican contenders is that by speaking the truth about an important subject, it is making today’s realpolitik approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, for example, more difficult – even for Israel! As if the Israeli position would not be strengthened by an American administration that would reject the false narrative of its enemies. Thus far, administrations that accept the Palestinian “Big Lie” invariably pressure Israel to make tangible and irrevocable concessions that threaten her very existence.

The logical extension of Mr. Gingrich’s “sin” is that not only should truth and morality be factors in making national policy, next he might suggest that political leaders should face reality and deal with it accordingly instead of making policy on delusional wishful thinking. Who does he think he is?
**************************************
The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.



www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
www.converttojudaism.net

reaction to the invented palestinians

Our World: Gingrich’s fresh hope
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
12/12/2011 23:20

Gingrich's statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago.

Talkbacks (100)
Last Friday, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, did something revolutionary. He told the truth about the Palestinians. In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, “who are in fact Arabs.”

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the “Palestinian people” was artificially carved out of the Arab population of “Greater Syria.” “Greater Syria” included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term “Palestinian people” only became widely accepted after 1977.

As Daniel Pipes chronicled in a 1989 article on the subject in The Middle East Quarterly, the local Arabs in what became Israel opted for a local nationalistic “Palestinian” identity in part due to their sense that their brethren in Syria were not sufficiently committed to the eradication of Zionism.

Since Gingrich spoke out on Friday, his factually accurate statement has been under assault from three directions. First, it has been attacked by Palestinian apologists in the postmodernist camp. Speaking to CNN, Hussein Ibish from the American Task Force on Palestine argued that Gingrich’s statement was an outrage because while he was right about the Palestinians being an artificial people, in Ibish’s view, Israelis were just as artificial. That is, he equated the Palestinians’ 91-year-old nationalism with the Jews’ 3,500-year-old nationalism.

In his words, “To call the Palestinians ‘an invented people’ in an obvious effort to undermine their national identity is outrageous, especially since there was no such thing as an ‘Israeli’ before 1948.”

Ibish’s nonsense is easily dispatched by a simple reading of the Hebrew Bible. As anyone semi-literate in Hebrew recognizes, the Israelis were not created in 1948. Three thousand years ago, the Israelis were led by a king named David. The Israelis had an independent commonwealth in the Land of Israel, and their capital city was Jerusalem.

The fact that 500 years ago King James renamed the Israelis “Israelites” is irrelevant to the basic truth that there is nothing new or artificial about the Israeli people. And Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, did not arise in competition with Arab nationalism. Zionism has been a central feature of Jewish identity for 3,500 years.

THE SECOND line of attack against Gingrich denies the veracity of his claim. Palestinian luminaries like the PA’s unelected Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told CNN, “The Palestinian people inhabited the land since the dawn of history.”

Fayyad’s historically unsubstantiated claim was further expounded on by Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dmitri Diliani in an interview with CNN. “The Palestinian people [are] descended from the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites that inhabited the ancient site of Jerusalem as early as 3200 BCE,” Diliani asserted,

The Land of Israel has the greatest density of archeological sites in the world. Judea, Samaria, the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan Heights and other areas of the country are packed with archeological evidence of the Jewish commonwealths. As for Jerusalem, literally every inch of the city holds physical proof of the Jewish people’s historical claims to the city.

To date, no archeological or other evidence has been found linking the Palestinians to the city or the Jebusites.

From a US domestic political perspective, the third line of attack against Gingrich’s factual statement has been the most significant. The attacks involve conservative Washington insiders, many of whom are outspoken supporters of Gingrich’s principal rival for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

To date, the attackers’ most outspoken representative has been Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. These insiders argue that although Gingrich spoke the truth, it was irresponsible and unstatesmanlike for him to have done so.

As Rubin put it on Monday, “Do conservatives really think it is a good idea for their nominee to reverse decades of US policy and deny there is a Palestinian national identity?” In their view, Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30- year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism.

The policy goal of the consensus is to establish an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River that will live at peace with Israel.

This policy was obsessively advanced throughout the 1990s until it failed completely in 2000, when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s and then US president Bill Clinton’s offer of Palestinian statehood and began the Palestinian terror war against Israel.

BUT RATHER than acknowledge that the policy – and the embrace of Palestinian national identity at its heart – had failed, and consider other options, the US policy establishment in Washington clung to it for dear life. Republicans like Rubin’s mentor, former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, went on to support enthusiastically Israel’s surrender of Gaza in 2005, and to push for Hamas participation in the 2006 Palestinian elections. That withdrawal and those elections catapulted the jihadist terror group to power.


The consensus that Gingrich rejected by telling the truth about the artificial nature of Palestinian nationalism was based on an attempt to square popular support for Israel with the elite’s penchant for appeasement. On the one hand, due to overwhelming public support for a strong US alliance with Israel, most US policy-makers have not dared to abandon Israel as a US ally.

On the other hand, American policy-makers have been historically uncomfortable having to champion Israel to their anti-Israel European colleagues and to their Arab interlocutors who share the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist.

The policy of seeking to meld an anti-Israel Arab appeasement policy with a pro-Israel anti-appeasement policy was embraced by successive US administrations until it was summarily discarded by President Barack Obama three years ago. Obama replaced the two-headed policy with one of pure Arab appeasement.

Obama was able to justify his move because the two-pronged policy had failed. There was no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The price of oil had skyrocketed, and US interests throughout the region were increasingly threatened.

For its part, Israel was far more vulnerable to terror and war than it had been in years. And its diplomatic isolation was acute and rising.

Unfortunately for both the US and Israel, Obama’s break with the consensus has destabilized the region, endangered Israel and imperiled US interests to a far greater degree than they had been under the failed dual-track policy of his predecessors. Throughout the Arab world, Islamist forces are on the rise.

Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

The US is no longer seen as a credible regional power as it pulls its forces out of Iraq without victory, hamstrings its forces in Afghanistan, dooming them to attrition and defeat, and abandons its allies in country after country.

The stark contrast between Obama’s rejection of the failed consensus on the one hand and Gingrich’s rejection of the failed consensus on the other hand indicates that Gingrich may well be the perfect foil for Obama.

Gingrich’s willingness to state and defend the truth about the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the perfect response to Obama’s disastrous speech “to the Muslim world” in Cairo in June 2009. It was in that speech that Obama officially abandoned the bipartisan consensus, abandoned Israel and the truth about Zionism and Jewish national rights, and embraced completely the lie of Palestinian nationalism and national rights.

Both Rubin and Abrams, as well as Romney, justified their attacks on Gingrich and their defense of the failed consensus by noting that no Israeli leaders were saying what Gingrich said. Rubin went so far as to allege that Gingrich’s words of truth about the Palestinians hurt Israel.

This is of course absurd. What many Americans fail to recognize is that Israeli leaders are not as free to tell the truth about the nature of the conflict as the US is. Rather than look to Israel for leadership on this issue, American leaders would do well to view Israel as the equivalent of West Germany during the Cold War. With half of Berlin occupied by the Red Army and West Berlin serving as the tripwire for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, West German leaders were not as free to tell the truth about the Soviet Union as American leaders were.

Today, with Jerusalem under constant political and terror threat, with all of Israel increasingly encircled by Islamist regimes, and with the Obama administration abandoning traditional US support for Israel, it is becoming less and less reasonable to expect Israel to take the rhetorical lead in telling important and difficult truths about the nature of its neighbors.

When Romney criticized Gingrich’s statement as unhelpful to Israel, Gingrich replied, “I feel quite confident that an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of, and the casualties they are taking and the people around them who say, ‘They do not have a right to exist and we want to destroy them.’” And he is absolutely right. It was more than nice.

It was heartening.

Thirty years of pre-Obama American lying about the nature of the conflict in an attempt to balance support for Israel with appeasement of the Arabs did not make the US safer or the Middle East more peaceful. A return to that policy under a new Republican president will not be sufficient to restore stability and security to the region.

And the need for such a restoration is acute. Under Obama, the last three years of US abandonment of the truth about Israel for Palestinian lies has made the region less stable, Israel more vulnerable, the US less respected and US interests more threatened.

Gingrich’s statement of truth was not an act of irresponsible flame throwing. It was the beginning of an antidote to Obama’s abandonment of truth and reason in favor of lies and appeasement. And as such, it was not a cause for anger. It was a cause for hope.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Newt being criticized because he is right

Melanie Phillips

US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (whose Lazarus-like trajectory to the Republican nomination I flagged up here a month ago) has recently demonstrated yet again Melanie's First Rule of Modern Political Discourse - the more obvious the truth that you utter, the more explosive and abusive the reaction.

For Gingrich said the Palestinian Arabs were 'an invented people' - and the world promptly started hurling execrations at him, as if such a statement proved beyond doubt that Gingrich was indeed a dangerously extreme individual who, when it came to political positioning, was just off the graph altogether.

So just what did he say? This:

' "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state - (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places..." '

But of course, he is absolutely correct. As Elder of Ziyonpointed out, the Arabs who lived in Palestine were a disconnected bunch of tribes who had nothing in common with each other except that they were Arabs. They never were, are not and never will be a Palestinian people (the claim that they are now just because they say they are is risible and would be dismissed out of hand if applied to any other self-defined grouping). There is not and never has been any 'Palestinian' Arab culture, language, religion or national identity separate from that of the wider Arab nation.
'Palestinianism' was invented solely to destroy Israel. The one and only characteristic of this 'national' identity is the aim of destroying another -- authentic -- national identity.

The Arabs have themselves repeatedly admitted this over the years.Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, the Syrian Arab leader told the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it."

At the United Nations in 1956, the Saudi representative stated:

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria."

And after the 1967 war Zuheir Muhsin, then military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council, said helpfully:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

The agenda of 'Palestinian rights' is, however, now so deeply rooted in western discourse and diplomacy - and even in Israeli leftist discourse - that Gingrich has found himself under attack for talking rubbish. But it is his attackers whose arguments are jaw-droppingly absurd.

For example, a Fatah Revolutionary Council member claimed that Gingrich was 'racist' and 'ignorant' because the Palestinians had descended from the 'Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites'. But as Elder of Ziyon comments in a further hilarious posting, there are one or two, ah, obstacles in the way of this particular claim:

'The only confirmed mention of the historic Jebusites is in the Hebrew Bible. That's the only source that says that the Jebusites lived around Jerusalem. This exact same source says that one of their leaders, Araunah, offered to give the Temple Mount to King David; David insisted that he pay for it, and he did - for the amount of fifty silver shekels. So if you believe that the Palestinian Arabs are actually Jebusites, you must believe that they sold the Temple Mount to the Jews in a legal transaction.

'... There is another problem, though. The Constitution of Palestine refers numerous times to the "Arab Palestinian people" and that "Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation." The PLO Charter similarly states "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

'But Jebusites were not Arabs. They were not even Semites! No self-respecting Jebusite (if any had still existed) would identify with the Arab hordes who overran his homeland in the seventh century. He would probably want to behead the infidel invaders.

'Is the constitution and charter wrong? When they call themselves Arab, are they all lying? Perhaps "Palestine" should quit the Arab League and re-assert its nebulous Jebusite ancestry.'

Next, herewas Israeli revisionist historian Tom Segev:

'"There is no intelligent person today who argues about the existence of the Palestinian people," Segev said. "Nations are created gradually. I don't think the Palestinians are less of a nation than the Americans," he added.'

There is no intelligent person today who would compare like with unlike in this shallow way. Americans became a nation solely because they created, lived in and governed America. The Jews were the nation who created, lived in and governed Israel. The Arabs were among waves of colonisers who took their national homeland away from them. The Americans did not base their entire claim to nationhood on the big lie that they were the original inhabitants of the land. The Palestinian Arabs do just that.

Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, rips the American analogy apart and goes on:

'Palestinian identity is just so much gibberish. The official definition of that identity encompasses only those parts of the Palestine Mandate which Israel holds today.
'The people who live on the parts of the Palestine Mandate that were turned into the Kingdom of Jordan in 1921 are not Palestinians. There is no call to incorporate them into a Palestinian state. The people who lived in the parts of Israel that were captured by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 weren't Palestinians, and there was no call to turn the land that today comprises the so-called "Occupied Territories" into a state. But in 1967 when Israel liberated those areas-- only then did they magically turn into Palestinians. How is anyone supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

'Suppose I were to tell you that there were an ancient people known as the Floridians whose land was seized from them to make resort hotels and orange groves. What would be your first clue that there was something wrong here? Florida is a Spanish name meaning flower. Palestine, which is a Latin name applied by its ancient conquerors, derived from the Greek, has the same problem.

'When the Jews rebuilt their country, they did not call it Palestine, that was the name used by European powers. They called it Israel. The local Arabs who had come with the wave of conquests that toppled Byzantine rule had no such history and no name for themselves. Instead they took the Latin name used by the European powers and began pretending that it was some ancient tribal identity, rather than a regional name that was used by the European powers to describe local Jews and Arabs.

'... This bloody circus has been going on for way too long. Enough that the Arab states and the local clan leaders have managed to turn out generations of children committed to killing in the name of a mythical identity for a state that they don't really want. The call for a Palestinian state was a cynical ploy for destroying Israel. It's why the negotiations never go anywhere, they're not meant to go anywhere.'

Exactly. Which is why Gingrich's remark goes to the very heart of the issue; and it is the fact that so many in the intellectual, political and diplomatic world - including in Israel itself - find what he said so outlandish that goes a long way to explain why there is still no peace in the Middle East.

Gosh - a presidential candidate who actually understands what's going on in the Middle East and speaks the truth about it! No wonder they're so desperate now to stop him.

Was Newt right about the "invented peole"

WAS NEWT RIGHT about the invented people?
Jewish World Review
The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine
By Daniel Pipes
(From our Sept. 14, 2000 issue)

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Today is the day when a Palestinian state was nearly declared - for the third time.
On October 1, 1948, the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini, stood before the Palestine National Council in Gaza and declared the existence of an All-Palestine Government.
In theory, this state already ruled Gaza and would soon control all of Palestine. Accordingly, it was born with a full complement of ministers to lofty proclamations of Palestine's free, democratic, and sovereign nature. But the whole thing was a sham. Gaza was run by the Egyptian government, the ministers had nothing to oversee, and the All-Palestine Government never expanded anywhere. Instead, this fa�ade quickly withered away.
Almost exactly forty years later, on November 15, 1988, a Palestinian state was again proclaimed, again at a meeting of the Palestine National Council.
This time, Yasser Arafat called it into being. In some ways, this state was even more futile than the first, being proclaimed in Algiers, almost 3,000 kilometers and four borders away from Palestine, and controlling not a centimeter of the territory it claimed. Although the Algiers declaration received enormous attention at the time (the Washington Post's front-page story read "PLO Proclaims Palestinian State"), a dozen years later it is nearly as forgotten as the Gazan declaration that preceded it.
In other words, today's declaration of a Palestinian state would have retreaded some well-worn ground.
We do not know what today's statement would have said, but like the 1988 document it probably would have claimed that "the Palestinian Arab people forged its national identity" in distant antiquity.
In fact, the Palestinian identity goes back, not to antiquity, but precisely to 1920. No "Palestinian Arab people" existed at the start of 1920 but by December it took shape in a form recognizably similar to today's.
Until the late nineteenth century, residents living in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean identified themselves primarily in terms of religion: Moslems felt far stronger bonds with remote co-religionists than with nearby Christians and Jews. Living in that area did not imply any sense of common political purpose.
Then came the ideology of nationalism from Europe; its ideal of a government that embodies the spirit of its people was alien but appealing to Middle Easterners. How to apply this ideal, though? Who constitutes a nation and where must the boundaries be? These questions stimulated huge debates.
Some said the residents of the Levant are a nation; others said Eastern Arabic speakers; or all Arabic speakers; or all Moslems.
But no one suggested "Palestinians," and for good reason. Palestine, then a secular way of saying Eretz Yisra'el or Terra Sancta, embodied a purely Jewish and Christian concept, one utterly foreign to Moslems, even repugnant to them.
This distaste was confirmed in April 1920, when the British occupying force carved out a "Palestine." Moslems reacted very suspiciously, rightly seeing this designation as a victory for Zionism. Less accurately, they worried about it signaling a revival in the Crusader impulse. No prominent Moslem voices endorsed the delineation of Palestine in 1920; all protested it.
Instead, Moslems west of the Jordan directed their allegiance to Damascus, where the great-great-uncle of Jordan's King Abdullah II was then ruling; they identified themselves as Southern Syrians.
Interestingly, no one advocated this affiliation more emphatically than a young man named Amin Husseini. In July 1920, however, the French overthrew this Hashemite king, in the process killing the notion of a Southern Syria.
Isolated by the events of April and July, the Moslems of Palestine made the best of a bad situation. One prominent Jerusalemite commented, just days following the fall of the Hashemite kingdom: "after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine."
Following this advice, the leadership in December 1920 adopted the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Within a few years, this effort was led by Husseini.
Other identities - Syrian, Arab, and Moslem - continued to compete for decades afterward with the Palestinian one, but the latter has by now mostly swept the others aside and reigns nearly supreme.
That said, the fact that this identity is of such recent and expedient origins suggests that the Palestinian primacy is superficially rooted and that it could eventually come to an end, perhaps as quickly as it got started.

Backing up Newt on the Invented palestinian people

Sunday, September 11, 2011What Palestine?
Is the world just plain stupid?
An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates

By Yashiko Sagamori

If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

1. When was it founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was its capital?

4. What were its major cities?

5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

6. What was its form of government?

7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

8.. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?

10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.

12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation.. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic id! entity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: Substituting etymology for history won't work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: At least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: A terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

Can this story be presented any more clearly or simply?

Cataloguing Palestinian Duplicity - Editorial

Cataloguing Palestinian Duplicity - Editorial
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seems to have come up with the solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian impasse: "Just get to the damn table," he said in response to a question on what Israel should do next. How foolish of the rest of us not to have thought of that sage advice years ago and saved so many lives. Of course Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted on numerous occasions that he is ready to sit down and negotiate directly with the Palestinians at any time. It's the Palestinian Authority that is holding out.
It's disturbing, but not surprising, that administration after administration in Washington since the Oslo agreement of 1993 has ignored the essential stumbling block to real peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That's the refusal of the Palestinian leadership, including the "moderate" Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
Just this week an important new book arrived that details in exhaustive fashion the duplicity of the PA, under President Mahmoud Abbas, in speaking to the West of its recognition of Israel while at the same time spreading hate speech and glorifying terrorists at home. Deception: Betraying the Peace Process, by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik of Palestinian Media Watch, chronicles the statements and actions of the PA.
We hope it's not too naive to believe that if the facts about the PA's behavior were known more widely, Western funding, starting with the U.S., would be leveraged far more effectively, with the threat of a complete cutoff if the situation persists. An authentic agreement is less about getting to "the damn table" than preparing Palestinian children to accept rather than seek to destroy a Jewish state. (New York Jewish Week)

Truth about Peace process

Truth about the west bank

Israeli population from Richard Baehr

Some very good news: The Jewish birth rate in Israel is now so high, that Jewish births as a percentage of all births in the country has risen by 7 % , from 69% to 76% in just a few years. The Arab birth rate continues to drop within Israel and the actual number of babies born to Israeli Arabs is also declining. The spurt in the Jewish birth rate is among all sectors of the population . Non-Orthodox Jews now have an average birth rate of 2.6 per woman of child bearing age, about a third higher than in any other developed nation. The overall birth rate is now just shy of 3. So much for the "demographic nightmare that Israel supposedly faces, that would force it to give up the West Bank.
http://tinyurl.com/7uw4p4a
The PA also grossly overstates their population in the West Bank and Gaza for political purposes. Yoram Ettinger , who knows a great deal about all of this demographic detail, will be in Chicago soon to speak on this.

www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

American Jews born in Jerusalem, believe they were born in a country, namely Israel. . Aligned against them: Barack Obama,

“Jerusalem, Israel” Goes Before the Supreme Court
Rick Richman | @jpundit
11.04.2011 - 7:30 AM

In “Scrubbing Israel,” Ben Smith notes that the Supreme Court will hear Zivotofsky v. Clinton on Monday, considering the constitutionality of the 2002 law that directs the secretary of state to designate “Israel” as the place of birth on the passport of an American citizen born in Jerusalem, if the citizen so requests.

Smith’s title reflects the fact that a few days after the New York Sun publicized the White House photos of Vice President Biden’s trip to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and hours after National Review Online published one of them), the White House scrubbed “Israel” from the captions. Smith also highlights Omri Ceren’s “startling” report on “Contentions” that the administration scrubbed references to “Jerusalem, Israel” in official State Department reports published by the Bush administration.


Finally, Smith cites newly discovered documents referencing “Jerusalem, Israel” in prior administrations as well:

A search of the Nixon Library, for instance, turns up his daily diary. A search of the Carter Library turns up ten similar documents. And a search of the Clinton Library finds all sorts of documents labeled “Jerusalem, Israel,” including the classic eulogy of Yitzhak Rabin. Even a search of current .gov websites turns up a spray of bureaucratic products referring to “Jerusalem, Israel.”

The Zionist Organization of America’s amicus brief in Zivotofsky lists references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on documents found on the sites of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Treasury. Hillary Clinton’s brief nevertheless asserts that any U.S. action that would signal “symbolically or concretely” that it recognizes Jerusalem as within Israeli sovereign territory would “critically compromise the ability of the United States to … further the peace process.”

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton became the named defendant in this case. In 2002, as senator from New York, she voted for the law. In 1994, her husband signed legislation allowing American citizens born in Taiwan to have “Taiwan” put on their passports even though U.S. policy – both before and after the legislation — was that there is only one China (the People’s Republic) and that Taiwan was not a separate country.

It is even more ironic (to use the mildest possible word) that the candidate who in 2008 told 7,000 people at AIPAC, at a critical moment in his presidential campaign, that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” is now seeking as president to have the Court hold unconstitutional a similar law with respect to Jerusalem, Israel.

Hamas murderers www.jonathanginsburg.org

ANOTHER ROUND OF WAR by Rachel Saperstein, Neve Dekalim/Nitzan

Over forty rockets have fallen in the south this past weekend. The shooting began Wednesday and intensified on Friday night, a favorite time for Arabs as they know it will destroy our Shabbat rest. The sirens wailed and the loudest, closest explosions were heard at 11:20pm. Our sleep was over.

Palestinian monsters glorify terror www.jonathanginsburg.org

Bulletin
Nov. 1, 2011
Click here to view PMW's website
Abbas glorifies terrorist prisoners
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5794

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Since the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly honored and glorified the released prisoners.

On the day of their release, Abbas greeted each one at a general ceremony in Ramallah and has since then publicly praised and honored them.

In this picture, Abbas is seen with released prisoner Amal Jum'a. Jum'a was arrested with explosives in May 2004, the day before her planned suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv market. Abbas is holding a representation of the PA map of "Palestine" that includes Israel and the PA areas. A poem glorifying Martyrdom death is written on the map:
"Mother, death has come. Prepare the death shroud. Mother, to my death I march. I do not hesitate."

Abbas met with Jum'a at one of the Fatah Revolutionary Council's meetings, which was dedicated to the released prisoners. (See further details below)

In his speech after the release of the prisoners, Abbas praised them, referring to their prison terms as:
"...enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland... Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. You acted and struggled and sacrificed."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]

Abbas has responded to the prisoners' release saying that he hopes for freedom for the rest of the prisoners and that he will continue to demand their release. Twice Abbas has singled out terrorists who are serving life sentences for murder: Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and Ahmad Sa'adat, who planned the murder of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi. Abbas also specifically mentioned Abbas Al-Sayid, who is serving 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning suicide bombings, including the Passover Seder bombing that killed 30, and Ibrahim Hamed, who planned the Hebrew University, Cafe Moment and Cafe Hillel suicide bombings, among others.

This week, the official PA daily reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council dedicated one of their regular meetings to the released prisoners to honor them. At the head table with Abbas, the PA Mufti and the Minister for Prisoners' Affairs sat two terrorists who had been serving life sentences before their release, Akram Mansour and Fakhri Barghouti. Several other released prisoners attended the meeting as well.

In his speech at the event, Abbas said that the prisoners are "holy to us and we must exalt them":

"Yesterday, in a ceremony that took place in the presence of [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas at the President's headquarters in Ramallah, the Fatah Revolutionary Council honored the prisoners released from the occupation's prisons... He [Abbas] said, 'We will not rest until all of our sons and daughters are released from the occupation's prisons, as well as the [imprisoned] leaders like Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat. Every prisoner from every faction is holy to us and we must exalt them.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 29, 2011]

Shortly after the prisoners' release, the PA decided to allocate $5 million for a "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners." PA Minister of Prisoners explained that the PA would award "monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled." The grants would be "disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas]," said the Deputy Minister of Prisoners.

The following is from Abbas' speech on the day of the prisoners' release as broadcast on PA TV:

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. We thank Allah that [you have returned] in peace, that you have returned safe and sound to your families, to your brothers, to your communities, after the enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland. We ask of Allah, may He be exalted, to fulfill our wish to see the rest of our brothers and sisters released like you, at this plaza, Allah willing. Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. you acted and struggled and sacrificed, and in the future you will see the results of your struggle in the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Brothers and sisters, your cause was and still is in our hearts and our thoughts, in our consciousness wherever we have been, in every Arabic or international forum. We were concerned only for our prisoner brothers and sisters, and we now see some of the most prominent among them. In the future, Allah willing, in the very near future, we will see here our brother Marwan Barghouti and our brother Ahmad Sa'adat, to whom we wish a speedy recovery. And we want to see, Allah willing, Ibrahim Hamed and Abbas Al-Sayid, and every male and female prisoner, returning, released, to the homeland, Allah willing."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]

Marwan Barghouti - serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he was re-elected member of the Palestinian Authority parliament.

Ahmad Sa'adat - serving life sentence for murdering Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi

Ibrahim Hamed - Hamas military leader who orchestrated many suicide attacks and bombings in Israel, including the suicide bombings in the Hebrew University cafeteria, Café Moment, Café Hillel, Zion Square in the center of Jerusalem, and others.

Abbas Al-Sayid - sentenced to 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning the suicide bombing at the Jewish Passover Seder in Netanya in 2002 in which 29 Israelis were killed, and another suicide bombing in Netanya in which 5 were killed and 100 wounded in 2001.

The following are statements from the PA Minister and Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs announcing the grant of 5 million US dollars to the released prisoners:

PA TV program interviews Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Ziad Abu Ein:
"We, as the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, have begun - and there is a gesture on the part of the honorable President [Abbas], approved by the Palestinian government, and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad hurried to implement it: There is a grant, a 'release grant', a grant from the President [Abbas] to all the released prisoners, whether they are in the Gaza Strip, in Turkey, in Egypt, or in Syria. Starting yesterday [Oct. 21, 2011] we began distributing [the grants] to the released prisoners in order to help meet their expenses. This grant is around $5 million, disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas], to be distributed to the [released] Palestinian prisoners inside [the PA] and outside of it."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 23, 2011]

Headline: "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners"
"[PA] President Mahmoud Abbas issued a directive today that monetary gifts be awarded as a token of honor to the prisoners released in the exchange deal. Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, said in a telephone conversation with WAFA [Palestine News and Information Agency] that the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, in cooperation with the district governors and the national institutions, began today awarding monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled."
[WAFA, Oct. 20, 2011]

Abbas representative praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers
1 recipientsCC: recipientsYou MoreBCC: recipientsYou
Hide Details FROM:PMW Bulletin TO:ehntrab@yahoo.com Message flagged Thursday, November 3, 2011 6:07 AMMessage body







Bulletin

Nov. 3, 2011




Click here to view PMW's website
Representative of Abbas praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers:
We salute those who dug the tunnel
and who kidnapped Shalit
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5799


by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik


Representing Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas and speaking in the name of the Fatah movement at a ceremony in honor of the released prisoners, Jibril Rajoub, member of Fatah's Central Committee, praised Hamas for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit:


"I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed."


Click to view


Rajoub also praised the released prisoners, stating how no words exist in any language to describe their courage and heroism:


"I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot ... describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor towards you."


Along the same lines, a columnist in the official PA daily expressed his joy over the exchange deal calling the released prisoners "the most precious loved ones," referring to them as "courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom":


"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians... are watching with excitement and longing... for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom... what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones... have returned to us!"


The following are longer excerpts from Jibril Rajoub's speech in the name of Fatah and the official PA daily's column glorifying the prisoners:


Ceremony moderator: "We shall now hear the address by the representative of the President [Abbas], to be delivered by Jibril Rajoub, member of the [Fatah] Central Committee."
Jibril Rajoub, representing President Abbas: "We celebrate today with a group of fighters who were released in the latest exchange of captives. I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed [Applause] ... I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot - neither I nor others, but even I, more than others, since I know your worth and recognize the measure of your resolve (i.e., Rajoub was himself a prisoner in the past) - [I cannot] describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor to you, your history, and your families. And to our prisoners in the prisons - all good wishes, and I hope that our joy will be complete with their release and with the achievement of Palestinian national unity."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 30, 2011]


Note: Jibril Rajoub was himself serving a life sentence for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army truck in 1970. He was released in the "Jibril-Agreement" in 1985, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine succeeded in releasing 1150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli hostages.


Official PA daily columnist Yahya Rabah:
Headline: "Welcome, heroes of freedom!"
"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians in the homeland and outside of it... are watching with excitement and longing, at every moment, for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom, when they arrive in Cairo, and then disperse among the arteries of our people, like blood flowing, full of glory and life - in Gaza [City] and in the other cities and village and camps of the [Gaza] Strip, in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, and in many of the neighboring countries. There the embraces of their relatives await them... and their nation will receive them there as symbols of giving and struggle and sacrifice. Their hope was just and their promise was true - here they are, released from behind bars and from the suffocation of solitary confinement, returning as free men! What [great] news - there is none more beautiful; what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones, those lost in the gloom of Israeli prisons, have returned to us! This national celebration, with the welcome of hundreds of our glorious female prisoners and heroic male prisoners, must receive in full what it deserves from us... The national concern is one and the same, and the national celebration is one and the same, and the national achievement is one and the same, and the [Fatah-Hamas] rift is a deviation... Welcome, oh heroes of freedom; our eyes are already waiting and longing; the news has illuminated our hearts."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 13, 2011]


This research was made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate to PMW now.



VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES


Shahada (Death for Allah) promotion Holocaust denial and distortion
Success of Shahada promotion Glorifying terrorists and terror
Promoting violence & terror Demonization
Conspiracy libels Israel's right to exist denied
Jewish history rewritten Objective: Israel's destruction


p:+972 2 625 4140 e: pmw@palwatch.org

f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org


 ÂÂÂ






This email was sent to ehntrab@yahoo.com by pmw@palwatch.org |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel

Caroline Glick Bad Shalit Deal www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org

Home

A pact signed in Jewish blood

October 13, 2011, 6:23 PM
Comments (21) | | Print


No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.

There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.

It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.

As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.

And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.

Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family.

Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.

There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.

Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.

Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.

For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.

And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.

Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.

The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.

The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.

IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.

Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.

This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.

The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.

Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.

There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.

In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.

This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.

The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.

Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.

He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.

Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.

But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.

Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.

They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.

So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.

WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.

Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.

With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.

But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.

According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.

What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.

Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.

At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.

At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.

What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.

"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."

The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.

Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Absurdity of uniltaeral Palestinian effort www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info

Land without peace: Why Abbas went to the U.N.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: September 29

While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.
It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.
To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.
Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”
Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:
●Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses. And makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.
●Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.
●Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.
This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.
Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.
So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.
The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.
After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.
Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.
Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000 and, in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war — and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.
Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.
Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to national suicide.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Primer on palestinian Statehood request

All you need to know about the Palestinian move for recognition by the United Nations.
by Leadership Action Network


(1) What Is UDI?
UDI stands for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to recognize a Palestinian state via the United Nations. UDI would fundamentally violate all of the major bilateral and international agreements that require that disputes be resolved through direct negotiations, not third parties. This includes the Declaration of Principles from 1993 that formalized the direct Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Oslo Interim Agreements of 1995 expressly prohibits (in Article 31), unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to reaching a negotiated permanent status agreement.
(2) Does Israel oppose a Palestinian state?
Israel is dedicated to two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. However, this must be achieved through direct, bi-lateral negotiations between the parties, not imposed from the outside or through a unilateral declaration. Especially in light of previous agreements including the Oslo Accords, this will only complicate the road to reaching an agreement for a sustainable, secure peace. None of the core issues including borders, Jerusalem, refugees and water, will be resolved by a UN resolution. It will only harm any efforts for peace by having the Palestinians lock into positions precluding any compromise in the future and possibly triggering violence on the ground due to unrealistic expectations. The United States and other countries have warned that recognition outside of direct negotiations could have implications for continued aid to the Palestinians.
(3) What does Israel want?
Israel wants to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians and has made it clear that it is willing to discuss peace without preconditions. In meeting with members of Congress on August 15, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I am willing to immediately start direct negotiations with [President Abbas] without preconditions. I am willing to invite him to my house in Jerusalem and I am willing to go to Ramallah.” And on September 8, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told PA President Mahmoud Abbas that it is critical that both sides “return to the negotiating table sans any preconditions. We must try and reach a breakthrough together. We must achieve this for our children and grandchildren.”
(4) What does the United States think about the PA pursuing UDI?
The United States believes that peace is only possible through a negotiated approach between the parties with mutual concessions and has made clear it will veto a UDI resolution in the Security Council if necessary. President Obama has said, “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” and later called it a distraction. Congress reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated settlement of the conflict between the parties through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Senate vote was unanimous and the House vote was an overwhelming 407-6. Many members of Congress have expressed their concern regarding UDI and indicated that they will reconsider the aid package to the Palestinians.
(5) What do the Palestinians think?
Many Palestinians have expressed concern over the United Nations declaration. In the “Palestine Papers” – confidential Palestinian Authority documents released earlier this year by Al Jazeera – lead Palestinian negotiators argued that announcing a Palestinian state without negotiating with Israel would be a mistake. Their major concern – as expressed in several memos – is that such a make-shift state would not satisfy the national hopes of the Palestinian people. Among those who have been adamantly against this approach is Prime Minister Salam Fayad. A recent study conducted for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs also pointed out that 40 percent of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than become citizens of a new Palestinian state.
(6) What would be the borders of this new state?
It is understood that Abbas will ask for the new state to be based on the 1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines. These are the fragile lines that Israel’s late Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared as the “Auschwitz” lines due to the existential threat this could pose to the security of Israel.
(7) Can the PA declare their state in this manner?
Under the principles of international law, which were codified under the Montevideo Convention, there are four prerequisites for statehood: a permanent population; a defined territory; effective government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. Currently, the Palestinian Authority does not satisfy these criteria. According to the UN Charter, membership is open to states only, not movements.
(8) Why would the Palestinian Authority proceed with UDI if they don’t meet the traditional prerequisites for statehood?
UDI would symbolically raise their international status without doing the work needed to establish a legitimate state.
(9) Is there a difference in jurisdiction between the Security Council and the General Assembly?
According to the UN charter, membership to the United Nations requires Security Council consent and an endorsement from two thirds of the General Assembly. In the event that a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto, membership could still be attained by utilizing the obscure “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a motion adopted during the Korean War that provides for an emergency session of the General Assembly in instances where the Security Council is believed to have failed. It is of note that there is considerable disagreement amongst UN officials over the applicability of “Uniting for Peace” on questions of UN membership. Alternatively, the Palestinians could opt for a simple General Assembly recognition of statehood based on the 1967 lines. Though legally non-binding, such a symbolic international gesture could enable the new state to join other specialized agencies and petition the International Criminal Court against Israel which Abbas has long asserted as a primary goal.
(10) If UDI succeeds, would the PA accept Israel as a Jewish state? What about Jewish citizens in the new state?
As recently as August 28, 2011, Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He told the international community, “Don’t order us to recognize the Jewish state. We won’t accept it.” The Palestinian leadership has made clear that any Palestinian state will be cleansed of all Jews. Unlike Israel, a state in which people of all backgrounds and faiths live, a new Palestinian state will be off limits to all Jews.
(11) Would Hamas gain legitimacy if the UDI is successful?
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority signed a reconciliation agreement but the Hamas Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel. In fact, Hamas rejects the three Quartet Principles - recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence. Hamas is designated a terrorist group by many countries including Jordan, Japan, the EU, and the United States. Supporting UDI under these current conditions would result in Hamas being given de facto international legitimacy. President Obama said in May, “Hamas still hasn’t recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and recognize that negotiations are the right path for solving this problem. And it’s very difficult for Israel in a realistic way to say we’re going to sit across the table from somebody who denies our right to exist. And so that’s an issue that the Palestinians are going to have to resolve…. I also believe that the notion that you can solve this problem in the United Nations is simply unrealistic.” The Senate’s unanimous resolution regarding direct negotiations between the parties reaffirmed opposition to inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence.
(12) What if the PA decides not to pursue statehood?
If the PA does not seek recognition of a Palestinian state, they will request to upgrade their diplomatic status at the United Nations General Assembly without compromise on any of their maximum demands on borders, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.
(13) How does upgrading the PA’s diplomatic status to a “non-member observer state” compare with their current observer status?
This would give the Palestinians the same status in the UN as the Vatican. It is important to note that the Vatican is a sovereign state, while the Palestinian Authority is not. This change would enable the PA to become a member of other UN organizations including UNESCO and the WHO. This could enable the Palestinians to petition bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with charges to try and delegitimize and isolate Israel, following the Apartheid South African model.
(14) When could this happen?
On Friday, September 23, President Abbas will address the United Nations General Assembly’s opening session. He may use this opportunity to present a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, initiating the process at the Security Council. There could be an elongated process or steps could be taken to short circuit the required committee review and recommendation that precedes a vote. It is believed that as of now, there are not enough affirmative votes with a couple of countries still undecided. Should seven members vote against or abstain, the resolution is defeated. Should it pass, the United States has indicated it will veto. An option is delaying until the elections to the Security Council in October, in the hope they will receive more affirmative votes. Another option is for direct negotiations to be launched simultaneously with the Security Council process, perhaps beginning with a meeting on the UN sidelines. Much rests on the course to be chosen by the

Rick Perry on Israel

Rick Perry’s Israel appeal

Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:54 PM ET, 09/20/2011
Rick Perry has been very interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lately. On the heels of editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East, Perry held a press conference Tuesday morning accusing the president of a “policy of appeasement” toward the Palestinian Authority.

Rick Perry has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late. (Melina Mara - THE WASHINGTON POST)
Perry’s interest in Israel is longstanding, and he’s defended the country’s foreign policy before, but not so frequently or vocally. Is he hoping to win over Jewish voters or is it another pitch to win over evangelicals?
As Texas agriculture commissioner in the 1990s, Perry started the Texas-Israel Exchange. In 2009, he traveled to Israel to receive a “Defender of Jerusalem” award. That same year, he told a reporter, “I have a special affection for that country, for the nation of Israel, a remarkable people,” comparing Masada, the sight of a famed battle between the Jews and the Roman Empire, to the Alamo.
Perry’s press conference on Tuesday came as the Obama administration tries to stop a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood this week. Obama is slated to talk to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Furthermore, Obama’s support with Jewish voters is dropping, some say illustrated by an unlikely win last week in the heavily Democratic and Jewish New York 9th district special election contest to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). During Perry’s appearance in New York on Tuesday, newly-minted Empire State GOP Rep. Bob Turner was by his side.
While polling finds that the economy is the main reason for Obama’s drop in Jewish support, many Republicans have seized on the results of last week’s special election as a sign that Israel could become a wedge issue with Jews in swing states in 2012.
“Whoever our Republican nominee is I think is going to have the ability to go into the Jewish community and provide a very strong argument and a very strong contrast” with Obama, said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
A top Perry strategist insisted following Perry’s speech that nothing had changed in terms of the governor’s strategy.
“Consistent, principled positions that don't change depending on what election one might be seeking will always do better amongst all voters,” said Perry strategist Dave Carney. “Our mission is to demonstrate for voters that we can take on Obama on the big issues of the day.”
Answering questions after his remarks Tuesday, Perry framed his Israel advocacy as part of his religion. “As a Christian, I have a clear directive to support Israel,” he said. “As an American and a Christian I will stand with Israel.”
That explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters. Perry’s hawkish Israel views will likely win him more support among evangelical Christians, many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons.
Just before becoming a presidential candidate, the governor held an unabashedly Christian prayer gathering in Houston, “The Response.” A few days ago he spoke at Liberty University, the school founded by evangelical fundamentalist Jerry Fallwell.
Even some Republican Jews were turned off by those events, a sign that Perry might struggle with GOP Jewish donors, who sources say have largely lined up behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney already.
Jonathan Tobin, the editor of the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary, wrote earlier this week that “most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah,” adding that Perry “could send the vast majority of Jews fleeing back to the Democrats, Israel.”
Perry’s social conservativism could also hurt him with Jewish voters.
While more socially conservative Orthodox Jews are the fastest-growing demographic in the Jewish community, the vast majority of Jews still oppose Perry on abortion and same-sex marriage.
And Jews still make a small population in swing states key to the general election. Only 7 percent of Jews in Pittsburgh are Orthodox and only 5 percent of Jews in Cincinnati, Ohio are Orthodox; only 3 percent of the Jews in Palm Beach County are Orthodox, according to the Jewish Databank. (About a third of the Jews in New York’s 9th district are Orthodox.)
Jews aren’t the only constituency in America invested in the Israeli state. According to Pew polling, sixty-four percent of white evangelical Protestants and 62 percent of conservative Republicans say helping Israel should be an important U.S. policy goal, compared with only 34 percent of mainline Protestants and 51 percent of all Republicans.
Fallwell, like Perry was an ardent supporter of Israel. So is evangelical pastor John Hagee, who spoke at Perry’s Prayer gathering.
“I don’t think the focus is on Jewish voters” right now, said Tevi Troy, who served as liaison to the Jewish community in the Bush White House. “There are a lot of Americans outside the Jewish community, including but not limited to evangelicals, who feel very strongly about Israel.”
In a GOP primary with Romney, Perry probably doesn’t have to worry much about the evangelical vote. But his outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters.
Over a quarter of Americans are evangelical Protestants, while less 2 percent of the country is Jewish. Moreover, evangelicals are far more influential in Republican primaries. Exit polling found that in 2008, sixty percent of caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in South Carolina were evangelicals.
One danger for Perry is that his grandstanding on Israel exposes some holes in his foreign policy knowledge. As the Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday , two of the three preconditions Perry demanded of Palestinians were met decades ago. The third has only been an issue since March of 2010.
2012 rival Rick Santorum (R)on Tuesday quipped, “I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel.”