FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Secretary of State Clinton with a Palestinian flag. What would the US do?

There has been a certain amount of talk about the possibility of a unilateral declaration of the state of ‘Palestine’ within the 1949 armistice lines. Nobody knows what would actually happen if the Palestinian Authority proceeds along this course, but some interesting questions come up:

The Arabs have enough votes in the UN General Assembly to pass almost any resolution that they want. But the Security Council, which is the only UN body that can actually enforce a resolution — by means of sanctions or even military force — is subject to the veto of any of its permanent members: the US, UK, France, Russia and China. What would these nations do?

What would the US do? Barry Rubin says that some Israeli officials expect that the Obama Administration will go all-out to ‘solve’ the Arab-Israeli conflict after the midterm elections. Since this is defined almost entirely in terms of getting a Palestinian state, and there is no overlap between Arab and Israeli positions that can bring this about through negotiations, the US might choose to support a unilateral declaration — or at least abstain.

Would Gaza be part of ‘Palestine’ and if so would Hamas be part of its government?

How many countries would recognize ‘Palestine’?

What would happen next? Would Palestinian authorities immediately demand that all Jewish settlements be evacuated? Would there be a time limit? Would the Palestinians try to expel Jews by force, as the Jordanians did in 1948? Would it try, in particular, to take possession of East Jerusalem (a casus belli if I ever saw one)?

If ‘Palestine’ becomes a sovereign state, it will have the ability to make alliances and even invite foreign troops into its territory to ‘defend’ it.

Such a declaration would be advantageous for the Arabs — if they could pull it off — because it would get them territory without requiring any concessions at all to Israel. ‘Palestine’ could continue to demand that refugees be allowed to ‘return’ to Israel, it could militarize, it could defend its airspace, etc. And it could continue to engage in ‘resistance’ against Israel.

‘Palestine’ already has a constitution, which has gone through several drafts. It tries to take into account the competing visions of Arab nationalism and Islamism that characterize the various factions in Palestinian Arab politics:

Article (1)

The State of Palestine is a sovereign, independent republic. Its territory is an indivisible unit based upon its borders on the eve of June 4, 1967, without prejudice to the rights guaranteed by the international resolutions relative to Palestine. All residents of this territory shall be subject to Palestinian law exclusively.

Article (2)

Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal, the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.

Article (3)

Palestine is a peace loving state that condemns terror, occupation and aggression. It calls for the resolution of international and regional problems by peaceful means. It abides by the Charter of the United Nations.

Article (4)

Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and seat of its public authorities.

Article (5)

Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.

Article (6)

The Palestinian flag, motto, seals, emblems, and national anthem shall be determined by law.

Article (7)

The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.

Some things are notable here:

Although the leadership has firmly and consistently rejected the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, ‘Palestine’ is defined as having an ‘official religion’ and its laws will be based on Shari’a! Note also that Article 3 condemns ‘occupation’. I don’t think they were thinking of the Chinese occupation of Tibet when they wrote this.

Hindus and Buddhists, who are not considered “monotheists,” will not be “revered and respected” in ‘Palestine’, should they choose to live there. Article 7, if interpreted in keeping with the traditional principles of Islam, implies that the monotheists will pay a special tax while non-monotheists will be required to accept Islam or leave.

Article (12)

Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law, without prejudice to the rights of those who legally acquired it prior to May 10, 1948 or the rights of the Palestinians residing in Palestine prior to this date, and who were forced into exile or departed there from and denied return thereto. This right passes on from fathers or mothers to their progenitor [sic — they mean ‘progeny’]. It neither disappears nor elapses unless voluntarily relinquished. A Palestinian cannot be deprived of his nationality. The acquisition and relinquishment of Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law. The rights and duties of citizens with multiple nationalities shall be governed by law.

Article (13)

Palestinians who left Palestine as a result of the 1948 war, and who were denied return thereto shall have the right to return to the Palestinian state and bear its nationality. It is a permanent, inalienable, and irrevocable right.

The state of Palestine shall strive to apply the legitimate right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, and to obtain compensation, through negotiations, political, and legal channels in accordance with the 1948 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the principles of international law.

According to this document, there will be even more ‘Palestinians’ than are recognized today by UNRWA, which allows Palestinian status to descend only to those with ‘Palestinian’ fathers. And the state of ‘Palestine’, as part of its constitution, calls for a right of return.

It’s interesting that Article 13 says that ‘Palestinians who left Palestine as a result of the 1948 war’ will have the right of return to the Palestinian state. There were between 550,000 and 700,00 of them in 1948, and there are far fewer today. The rest of the 4.5 million Arabs with refugee status, therefore, will either go to Israel or stay in refugee camps. This is consistent with the Arab position since 1949 — ‘refugees’ will never be allowed to have a home until Israel is destroyed.

Will they do it? My guess is quite possibly, if they think they can get US support. Remember, their goal is the replacement of Israel with ‘Palestine’, not a state alongside Israel. A partition agreement that Israel could accept to would include demilitarization, various security features, and limitations on sovereignty, at least for a time. It would also rule out an influx of ‘refugees’ and would put the Arabs on the wrong side of international law if they violate it.

And the US? Who knows? Foreign policy under this administration is neither consistent nor rational.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestine

This week it’s from Khaled Abu Toameh:

But just as life seemed to be returning to normal in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Israelis and Palestinians were for the first time in many years beginning to talk about security and economy cooperation, the US Administration stepped in to demand that the “peace process” be resumed.

More evidence of a simple proposition that should be obvious (but isn’t, at least to US officials):

The Palestinian Arabs won’t compromise with Israel unless they are forced to give up the idea that they can get everything they want for nothing.

When the US creates new conditions and demands new concessions, the Arabs are encouraged to harden their demands.  When the US says that it wants to see a Palestinian state within a year, the reaction is “OK, let’s give nothing for a year  and see what we get.”

Of course today the Arabs understand that with an election coming up, Obama is working very hard to keep pro-Israel voters (not just, or even mostly, Jews) in line. So that’s another reason for the them to stand pat.

It’s obvious!

What could be more obvious?

And yet, the administration continues to pressure Israel over things like housing plans in existing Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, without insisting on any reciprocal concessions from the Arabs.

Another way of looking at it is that there is no overlap in the objectives of Israel and the Arabs. Israel wants peace and security, while the Arabs want to eliminate the Jewish state. A compromise can’t be reached without changing at least one of these. The US seems to be trying to change Israel’s goal, not the Arabs’!

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Obama Administration

The 33 Chilean miners were underground for 69 days. Much of the world focused its attention on them, while no effort or cost was spared to get them out into the light after the nightmarish accident that buried them.

Gilad Shalit has been underground for one thousand, five hundred and seventy-four days today (he was taken on June 25, 2006).

He is alone in a bunker somewhere in Gaza, without 32 friends, without communication with his family, and probably believes that he has been forgotten.

His entombment was not an accident, like the explosion that trapped the miners. It was a purposeful act perpetrated by creatures that I can confidently call the scum of the earth.

The President of Chile personally involved himself in the project to free the miners. Other world leaders supported it as well.

In the case of Shalit, the current President of the US applied pressure to Israel to end Operation Cast Lead in time for his inauguration, without rescuing Shalit or overthrowing the Hamas regime. Later, the US, UN, EU etc. combined to force Israel to end its limitation on goods flowing into Gaza, thus legitimizing Hamas and guaranteeing its continuation in power.

A way to save Shalit is to make his continued captivity so painful for Hamas leaders that they will be happy to release him. There are ways to do this: perhaps a complete cutoff of fuel, electricity, and water to Gaza, with the understanding that the embargo will be lifted the instant Shalit is safe. If there is a ‘humanitarian crisis’ as a result, it will be entirely the fault of Hamas.

The people and authorities in Chile did not simply declare the miners dead and move on. They used extraordinary means to save them. So should we.

Technorati Tags: Gilad Shalit, Chile, Chilean miners, Israel, Hamas

Turkey, formerly a close ally of the US and the Muslim country with the warmest relations with Israel, started moving in the other direction with the rise to power of the Islamist AKP party under Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan in 2003.

Hostility to Israel reached a high level during the Gaza war in 2008-9, with ErdoÄŸan famously stomping off the stage he shared with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2009.

The hostility peaked with the Mavi Marmara episode this May 31 — most likely orchestrated by the Turkish regime — in which nine Turkish Islamist extremists were killed after they attacked an Israeli boarding party with knives, iron bars and live fire.

In fact, Turkey is now a full partner in the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance against the US and Israel. ErdoÄŸan-friendly foreign-policy commentator Semih Idiz writes,

Consider the recent traffic in the Middle East, with Prime Minister Erdoğan paying a high-profile visit to Syria, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Lebanon in a similar manner. Add to this the increasingly warm ties between Ankara and Tehran as well as the fact that all three countries are also Hamas- and Hezbollah-friendly, and a picture of some kind of a “new axis” emerges for the region.

Put briefly, there is an increasingly apparent ideological divide that is growing between Turkey and the U.S. in particular, and Turkey and Europe to a lesser extent, and this is most apparent when Iran or Hamas is the subject of discussion.

On one side of the divide we have a U.S. that is prepared to use its influence come what may on behalf of Israel [I wish — ed.]. The same applies to Europe also, up to a point. On the other hand we have a Turkey that is increasingly prepared to use its influence on behalf of Iran and Syria at the expense of angering and alienating its traditional partners and allies in the West and the Middle East.

The loss of Turkey — a NATO member and military power — to the West is an event of great significance which has been almost entirely ignored here. Lebanon, too, has more or less lost its independent status as Hizballah’s influence there has grown, and Iranian PM Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon reflects his staking Iran’s claim to control that country.

Future historians of the Middle East will point to this period as a turning point.

Here’s how one Israeli cartoonist (exclusively in FresnoZionism!) sees the relationship between the Iranian regime and its satellites:

The new axis in the Middle East

Technorati Tags: Turkey, Israel, Syria, Iran, Hizballah

Carlos

So somebody made a 330-minute film about Ilich “Carlos the Jackal” Ramírez Sánchez.

Do you think this fat little dick is worth 5-1/2 hours? He killed and injured numerous innocents in support of the ‘Palestinian cause’, to settle grudges (he seems to have had one against France), for money, in the name of Marxism, and to make a name for himself. He was narcissistic, vain, sadistic, a Jew hater. Finally the French put him in jail for life.

That took about 20 seconds to read. I just saved you five hours, twenty-nine minutes, and 40 seconds.

***

Hannah Rosenthal is the Obama Administration’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.  Here’s what she had to say as a member of a panel at the Catholic University of America in Washington:

What we are seeing now is not just anti-immigrant sentiment with Muslims. Almost all immigrant communities in any country face integration challenges, but the experience of Muslims now is different because of 9/11. If for instance two immigrants could come from India to the US at the same time and in the same socio-economic status, one Hindu and one Muslim, no one would ever ask the Hindu to prove that he or she is a “moderate Hindu”. While deeply troubling and unfortunate – it is a reality. And I believe discrimination and prejudice need to be called out and condemned.

Yes, Americans are nervous about Muslims because of 9/11 (and numerous other things that I don’t need to list) which were done in the name of Islam. Apparently she noticed this.

So why is it ‘troubling and unfortunate’ that people aren’t equally nervous about Hindus, who, as far as I know, have not committed one single act of terrorism in the US?

I’d call it logical.

***

The (ridiculously long) Quote of the Week is from P. J. Crowley, US State Department spokesman, at a press briefing on Tuesday:

QUESTION: P.J., do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

MR. CROWLEY: We will continue our discussions with the parties. I would expect, following up on the Arab League meetings of late last week that George Mitchell will go to the region at some point. I’m not announcing anything, but I – it would be logical for us to follow up directly with the parties, see where they are. We will offer our ideas on – based on our conversations what our assessment is that – of what each side needs to be able to make the political commitment to remain in these direct negotiations.

QUESTION: And do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize the aspiration of the people of Israel. It has – it’s a democracy. In that democracy, there’s a guarantee of freedom and liberties to all of its citizens. But as the Secretary has said, we understand that – the special character of the state of Israel.

QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?

QUESTION: P.J., it’s – do you want to answer his question or —

QUESTION: Did you say yes or no to that question from Michel?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Michel’s question was a yes or no sort of question. I was wondering whether that was a yes or no.

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that Israel is a– as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes.

…

QUESTION: Did you say that you recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not making any news here. The President, the Secretary, and others have said this before.

QUESTION: Because Abbas said they recognize the state of Israel. Does the U.S. want the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: Look, I will be happy to go back over and offer some – I’m trying – I’m not making any news here. We have recognized the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well. But this is the aspiration of the – what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is, in essence, the – a core demand of the Israeli Government, which we support, is a recognition that Israel is a part of the region, acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and that is what they want to see through this negotiation. We understand this aspiration and the prime minister was talking yesterday about the fact that just as they aspire to a state for the Jewish people in the Middle East, they understand the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.

I think he said it, don’t you?

Technorati Tags: Carlos the Jackal, Hannah Rosenthal, Islam, terrorism, State Department, Jewish state