FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

In the peculiar mental space of the ‘Palestinian’ movements — the PLO, Hamas and their supporters — there are some words that are used very differently from the way most Israelis and Americans use them. Here are some definitions to keep in mind when you read or listen to their statements:

Palestine — The entire land area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Palestinian land — All of Palestine as defined above.

Palestinian People — All Arabs that lived in Palestine in 1948 and their descendants, including those who migrated into the region from Egypt or Syria in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Jews — Adherents to the Jewish religion.

Jewish People — There isn’t one. Unlike Palestinians, the PLO and Hamas do not consider Jews a ‘people’.

Zionists — Jews who colonized Palestine.

Occupation — The presence of a Zionist colony on Palestinian land. The occupation began in 1948. It is illegitimate despite League of Nations and UN resolutions, either because it is a colonialist enterprise (the PLO) or for religious reasons (Hamas).

Palestinian Refugees — Those Palestinians who lived in the area of the Zionist colony and were displaced in 1948, and their descendants. There are 4.5 million of these, and they are the true owners of the land in the Zionist colony.

Palestinian Cause — To end the occupation and return all Palestinian refugees to their ancestral homes, as defined above.

Two-state solution — An outcome to the conflict which ends the occupation by declaring two states: one in Eastern Palestine which will be entirely populated by Arabs, and one in the part of Palestine occupied by the Zionists in 1949, where Palestinian refugees will return.

Although Hamas and the PLO diverge sharply on many issues, including the kind of state that should ultimately be created in ‘Palestine’ and the best way to end the ‘occupation’, they all agree on the definitions above.

If you keep these definitions in mind, you will have no trouble understanding:

The refusal of PA leaders and negotiators to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish People. For one thing, they don’t agree that there is a Jewish people (although with massive illogic they then insist that there is a ‘Palestinian’ people), and for another, this would declare the ‘occupation’ legitimate — in contradiction to the basic principle of the Palestinian Cause.

The rejection of the Camp David proposal in 2000  and Olmert’s offer in 2008. Both of these would have created a state of Palestine in the territories and included unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem. But they didn’t include return of ‘Palestinian refugees’ and contained various provisions that would safeguard and legitimize the ‘Zionist colony’. They would not have ended the ‘occupation’ and so contradicted the Palestinian Cause.

The derisive response to PM Netanyahu’s statement in support of a two-state solution. Netanyahu’s position represented a significant departure from previous Likud principles that it would not accept a Palestinian state, and caused him internal difficulties with his supporters on the Right. But since he insisted on demilitarization and did not accept the ‘return’ of ‘refugees’, this was not considered a legitimate ‘two-state solution’.

The continued rocket and suicide terrorism of Hamas after Israel withdrew from Gaza. Hamas considered the withdrawal as a victory in the battle to end the ‘occupation’, brought about by its policy of violent resistance. Therefore it chose to continue this successful policy to end the rest of the ‘occupation’.

And of course, the persistence of the conflict.

Most Israelis and Americans, including — one hopes — the Obama Administration, believe that Israel is legitimate and that it is the nation-state of the Jewish people. They use the word ‘occupation’ to refer to territories occupied in 1967, and they imagine a two-state solution as one in which an Arab state of Palestine lives peacefully alongside a Jewish state of Israel. All of these usages are significantly different than the ‘Palestinian’ definitions above.

Those who — deliberately or from ignorance — deny these ambiguities may say things like “everybody knows what the general outlines of a solution are; we just need to work out the details.” But that’s far from true.

Communication is impossible without agreement on the meanings of words. As long as systematic ambiguity about basic concepts remains, the conflict cannot be ended by negotiation.

So why don’t negotiators agree on terms?

The answer is that they are not trying to end the conflict. Diplomats love ambiguity, because it allows them to pretend to be making progress so they can demand concrete concessions from the other side or from third parties.

The dirty little secret about diplomacy is that it is more like warfare than problem-solving.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Israeli-Arab conflict, two-state solution

Today I took part in an event to raise funds to feed hungry people. The sponsoring agency was Church World Service (CWS), founded after WWII by various Christian denominations to help feed the population of devastated Europe.

Participants included members of our local Reform Jewish congregation, many Protestant churches and a mosque. I was assured that the event was entirely non-political, intended only to fight hunger.

Sounds great, and there are certainly plenty of hungry people today in Africa, Pakistan, etc. But when I looked at the CWS website, I discovered that CWS not only fights hunger, but also advocates and lobbies for ‘peace and justice’.

Uh-oh. It’s a sad state of affairs that these words must set off alarm bells, but they do. And sure enough, here’s what I found:

Contact your members of Congress and urge them to support the Obama Administration’s efforts toward a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Tell them that you appreciate the Administration’s encouragement of both sides to get serious about meaningful negotiations, and you support its efforts to end Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian Territories.

And more: CWS presents with approval a vicious 2009 statement from some Christian Arabs, the “Kairos Document,” which begins as follows:

We, a group of Christian Palestinians, after prayer, reflection and an exchange of opinion, cry out from within the suffering in our country, under the Israeli occupation, with a cry of hope in the absence of all hope, a cry full of prayer and faith in a God ever vigilant, in God’s divine providence for all the inhabitants of this land.

Inspired by the mystery of God’s love for all, the mystery of God’s divine presence in the history of all peoples and, in a particular way, in the history of our country, we proclaim our word based on our Christian faith and our sense of Palestinian belonging – a word of faith, hope and love.

It gets much worse from here on, blaming Israel for all the misfortunes of the Palestinian Arabs, especially the Christians — whose numbers are rapidly shrinking as they emigrate to escape the conflict and religious persecution by Muslims, attacking Jewish rights in the land of Israel, providing theological justification for ‘resistance’, etc. Incidentally, various versions of this document appear all over the web, on anti-Zionist and antisemitic sites.

Snookered again! Here I wanted to feed the hungry and ended up supporting those who would like to feed the Jewish state to the lions.

This started me thinking: what caused the ‘Palestinization’ of all of these organizations that were originally intended simply to help those in need or the truly oppressed?

CWS is just one of numerous charitable NGOs that have gone this way. Amnesty International (AI) was founded in 1961 to help ‘prisoners of conscience’ — people imprisoned for purely political or religious reasons. Human Rights Watch (HRW) was created to monitor human rights provisions of the 1978 Helsinki Accords, which called for “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.”

But recently AI and HRW cynically cooperated with the corrupt UN Human Rights Council to give birth to the tendentious Goldstone Report, which maliciously demonized Israel.

In some cases, political slants can be predicted by looking at funding sources. HRW, for example, gets most of its money from left-leaning foundations, including the Open Society Institute of George Soros; and last year it held a fund-raising dinner in Saudi Arabia. Other NGOs are funded by the European Union and other governmental sources which have a stake in pressuring Israel.

In the case of CWS, it’s not that easy. Surprisingly, 43% of its income comes from the US government, probably to pay for CWS’s work resettling Haitian and Cuban refugees in the US. It’s likely that its anti-Israel ‘advocacy’ is inspired by activists among its leadership. This is the same phenomenon which causes groups like trade unions, the Presbyterian Church, city councils, etc. to consider and sometimes pass ‘boycott Israel’ resolutions.

Most of the people who vote on these resolutions are not particularly interested in the Israeli-Arab conflict, but they have a general idea that Israel is oppressing some third-world people, and can be convinced to do the ‘right’ thing, since there is little effort involved and no personal consequences.

As a board member of a non-profit myself, I am well aware that members have pet projects, and that sometimes a director will support another’s project in return for a vote for his own.

All that’s required is at least one persistent, dedicated ideologue to introduce ‘Palestine’ as a cause, to get grants from sympathetic sources and hire like-minded staff, etc. In some cases, like HRW, it seems that issues concerning Israel come to crowd out most of the others.

There is no shortage of activists in the 36 member denominations of CWS, which include the Orthodox churches that most ‘Palestinian’ Christians belong to, as well as some others which themselves have passed anti-Israel initiatives.

I am certain that CWS does a great deal of good. But in fiscal year 2008-9, it also sent over $2 million to unspecified recipients in the Middle East (grants outside the US are not listed in detail on the form 990), and spent about $3 million on ‘education and advocacy’ — including lobbying — on issues including ‘justice and peace-building’, climate change, hunger, refugees, immigration, etc.

Next time I feel like fighting hunger, I’ll make a donation to a local food pantry.

Technorati Tags: Church World Service

Here is something that appeared today on the Palestinian Media Watch site:

A clip broadcast seven times in three days on PA TV labeled Palestinian terrorists as “heroes” for having murdered six Israelis in two terror attacks. PA TV showed the clip to coincide with the anniversary celebrations of the Palestinian Arab Front (formerly Arab Liberation Front), the organization that carried out the attacks in 1975 and 1980.

The TV clip glorified the terror attacks by showing two pictures of the terrorists who committed the attacks, with captions that read, “The heroes of the Kfar Yuval operation” and, “The heroes of the Misgav Am operation.”

The attack on Kfar Yuval
On June 15, 1975, terrorists from the Arab Liberation Front penetrated the Israeli village Kfar Yuval near the Lebanese border. Four terrorists seized control of one of the homes and held its inhabitants hostage. Three Israelis were killed.

The attack on Misgav Am
On April 7, 1980, five terrorists from the Arab Liberation Front took control of the children’s house in Kibbutz Misgav Am in northern Israel, holding the children hostage. They killed two adults and one child [four other children were wounded — ed.] before they were subdued by the Israeli army.

I remember the Misgav Am attack quite well, since it occurred about a year after I moved to Israel. I lived on a kibbutz not unlike Misgav Am, and my son, who is 33 today and has two small children of his own, lived in a children’s house not unlike the one on Misgav Am. So the story made a big impresion on me.

This particular children’s house was a peuton, whose residents were perhaps two or three years old. An armed kibbutz member was present as night guard, a job that I had done numerous times. He was the first one killed.

I remember struggling through the Hebrew news accounts of the attack. What has stuck with me for thirty years was the way one of the surviving children described the incident: “The bad dogs barked.”

The Arab Liberation Front is now called the “Palestinian Arab Front” and is part of the PLO. The PA is the official incarnation of the PLO as a government, created by the Oslo Accords.

You can learn a lot about people by looking at their heroes.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian Authority, PLO, Misgav Am

We are really going to get it after the election, leaks the administration:

Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is still absorbing the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to date rejected a proposed American compromise package that would have offered various security and other assurances to Israel in exchange for a 60-day renewal of a partial West Bank settlement freeze that expired last month.

The American team is said to be frustrated and upset at Netanyahu’s dismissal to date of the package, which was drafted by the NSC’s Dennis Ross in close consultation with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli negotiator Yitzhak Molho…

“’We put our asses on the line,’” the sense of dismay among the U.S. Middle East team at Netanyahu’s rejection of the U.S. package was described. “’We worked with your defense minister and gave you this amazing deal, all the cover you needed to extend the freeze. And you not only rejected it, but put forward a counterproposal [demanding Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state] pandering to the right and a stalling tactic.’” — Laura Rozen, Politico

In other words, the ‘team’ is furious that Israel did not accept its package of bribes and promises (here is a sympathetic assessment that details the offer) in return for not insisting that the Palestinian Authority (PA) affirm that an agreement with them is more than a stepping-stone to the replacement of Israel by an Arab state.

Indeed, the ‘team’ views the idea that Israel is the state of the Jewish people as a right-wing idea — when in truth it is Israel’s reason for being. This is like saying that the ideal of individual freedom in the US is a ‘right-wing’ idea!

On May 14, 1948, the state of Israel was established as  “a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel”, and it was immediately recognized by the US. The Palestinian Arabs, who had been at war with the pre-state Jewish settlement for some time, of course refused to accept this. For 62 years they have continued to fight against what they see as ‘occupation’ of ‘their’ land.

The so-called ‘peace process’ is supposed to end this conflict by means of yet another partition of the area of the League of Nations Mandate (the first partition occurred in 1922 when Britain gave 70% of the land to Abdullah, the great-grandfather of the present King Abdullah of Jordan, for an Arab state).

But the conflict will not be ended simply by creating another Arab state if that state and the rest of the world continue to insist that the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate.

The Obama administration doesn’t put a high priority on ending the conflict. Their immediate objective is the creation of ‘Palestine’, and they will worry about what happens afterward — afterward. They would hate the comparison, but a previous administration made a similar error when it decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein first and worry about the aftermath later.

So now they’re mad at Netanyahu for being a Zionist — how inconvenient — and will need to find some other way to create ‘Palestine’. The leakers continue,

No new plan B is likely to emerge before the November mid-terms. One possibility being mulled — but not decided on – is the administration eventually putting forward American ideas for the basis of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.

In a meeting last week, high level U.S. State Department and NSC officials were asked what’s to stop Netanyahu saying no to such a plan. The answer the officials gave was there are ways to put things forward that he can’t say no to.

Some analysts also see a possibility that Netanyahu might be pushed to consider eventually bringing opposition Kadima leader Tzipi Livni into his governing coalition if he wants to move forward on the peace track. Quiet feelers and conversations have been described taking place.

In other words, the US will dictate terms and force Netanyahu to accept them (if Rahm Emanuel were still there, he could send Bibi a dead fish). Note that despite the fact that the US provides a large part of the subsidy that keeps the PA alive, it is unable or unwilling to pressure it to accept Netanyahu’s condition for extending the freeze — otherwise it would have done that already.

Another option will be to force regime change in Israel, to gain a more cooperative government. This seems to be based on the assumption that the only reason Netanyahu insists on recognition is that he is afraid of the right-wing members of his coalition. I doubt this.

If the sources quoted here really represent the thinking of the administration (and we’ll soon find out), then there is a message for every country that considers itself an ally of the US:

These guys don’t have allies, they have satellites.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama Administration, Jewish state, Palestinian Authority