FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

If you want an honest statement of the Palestinian position free of the usual posturing, look no further:

In a letter to [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas, Salman Abu Sitta, a prominent spokesman for Palestinian refugees, wrote: “We are aware of the pressure you are facing to abandon the Palestinian position and endorse Israel’s vision. But what has drawn our attention more than anything else is Israel’s attempt to redefine the idea of the two-state solution. Israel now wants mutual recognition – Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and, on what’s left of the land, Palestine as the national homeland of the Palestinians.”

Abu Sitta described the Israeli formula as “extremely dangerous,” saying it should be rejected by all Arabs. He said accepting this formula would be tantamount to abandoning the Arab right to Palestine and accepting the Jews’ ostensible historical and biblical rights to the land.

In addition, Abu Sitta argued, the Israeli stance abolishes the right of return for Palestinians on two levels: recognition of this right and its fulfillment.

“This would constitute a historic burden; no Palestinian could bear its consequences in front of his people and history,” he cautioned. He said it was inconceivable that the Palestinians would abandon the right of return after decades of fighting. — Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

And all this time, proponents of a two-state solution have been arguing that the problem is that the correct formula for compromise hasn’t been found yet. They suggest that the Clinton-Barak proposals failed because Israel did not offer enough or because Arafat wasn’t ready for peace.

The real problem is that Israelis and Americans have never really paid attention to what Palestinians say, or have never believed that they actually meant it.

The Palestinians believe a false version of history. They are wrong about the connection of the Jews to the land, they are wrong about the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and they are especially wrong about their understanding of the events of 1948.

In addition to being mistaken about what actually happened, they are totally blind to their own agency in bringing about their situation. They don’t take responsibility for the actions of al-Husseini (the Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem), Yasser Arafat, Hamas, or any number of murderers and terrorists.

But never mind, this is the version of reality that they believe, with the passion that only a truly miserable people can muster. And this misery has been carefully nurtured over the years by the Arab nations, the UNRWA which was created just for this purpose (and mostly paid for by the US), and the sympathetic international Left which has adopted their cause.

So they have never been, and are not now, willing to accept a compromise solution that leaves room for a Jewish state.

But this should not be Israel’s problem. Why should Israel have to pay for the perfidy of the British and French, the stupidity of al-Husseini, the evil and corruption of Arafat, the grandiose plans of Nasser, the machinations of the Assads, and the fact that the Palestinians have been lied to so thoroughly by themselves and others?

The responsibility for solving the problems of the descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948 should fall on those who really created and perpetuated the problem. Since the UN has entire departments and ‘divisions’ dedicated to Palestinian rights, since it has had several ‘human rights’ bodies that dealt with little else, maybe it could come up with an answer.

Such a solution would involve the abolition of UNRWA, compensation for the treatment these people have received from their ‘host’ nations since 1948, education and job-training programs, and finally resettlement in the host nations or ‘Palestine’ if such an entity is ultimately created — which of course will ultimately be up to the Palestinians themselves.

Technorati Tags: Palestinians, Israel

Former Time reporter in Iran Azadeh Moaveni was interviewed on NPR today, and she said that the Arab world is angry at the US because of its support for Israeli “mistreatment” of Palestinians. But how do the Arabs treat the Palestinians in their own countries?

Iraq

LONDON (AFP) – Thousands of Palestinian refugees in Iraq have been ill-treated, with many of them abducted, tortured and murdered by armed Shiite Muslim groups, Amnesty International said in a report published Monday.

“Palestinian refugees in Iraq have been subjected to gross human rights abuses including abduction, hostage-taking, unlawful killing, torture and other ill-treatment at the hands of armed militia groups,” it said.

Lebanon

Eli Bakhya, the cameraman who entered the [Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee] camp, said he was able to go only about a kilometre into the camp, and that the presence of snipers prevented him from going any farther and they were stuck in the middle.

He said buildings everywhere were destroyed.

Walid Abdullah, a nurse taking care of casualties in the camp, said the situation was disastrous.

He said the bombardment from the army was targeting civilians and that three mosques were hit.

“Many dead bodies are lying on the streets,” he said. “They are bloated and smelling and there is a threat of epidemics.” Al-Jazeera [May 22]

The Nahar al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp was wrecked, and Al-Jazeera reported today that “More than 400 people have died in the fighting between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam, including at least 222 fighters”.

Kuwait

At the end of the Gulf War Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians because the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had aligned the PLO with Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait. The exodus took place during one week in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation. Although many Palestinians had joined the Kuwaiti resistance to Iraq’s occupation, they were scapegoated and blamed for the the position adopted by the PLO leader…

Prior to the exodus, Palestinians made up about 30% of Kuwait’s population. By 2006 only a few had returned to Kuwait and today the number of Palestinians living in Kuwait is less than 40,000 (under 3% of the population). — Wikipedia

Syria

The Syrian government…has refused to allow the Palestinians [refugees from the fighting in Iraq] entry into the country, leaving the refugees stranded at the border. Hundreds more are expected to attempt to make the journey.

“It’s hard to understand why Syria has provided refuge to nearly a million Iraqi refugees but is shutting the door on hundreds of Palestinians also fleeing Iraq,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Syrian government’s mistreatment of these Palestinian refugees contrasts sharply with its declarations of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” — Human Rights Watch

…and in general

Since 1948 the Arab nations (with the exception of Jordan) have never agreed to grant Palestinian refugees citizenship in their host countries, or allowed them freedom to work in occupations of their choice, or even freedom of movement. They have done their best to breed a mass of humanity kept miserable so that they will be a source of recruits for terrorist organizations and a weapon to use against Israel. Indeed, HRWs Whitson could have said with equal truth “The Arab nations’ mistreatment of these Palestinian refugees contrasts sharply with their declarations of solidarity with the Palestinian people”.

Technorati Tags: Palestinians

From time to time we see the argument made that a reasonable compromise on the Palestinian ‘right of return’ would be for Israel to accept the ‘right’ of the Palestinians to return, without it being ‘realized’:

We, the Jews, also do not surrender, nor can we surrender, our rights to the historic holdings of our forefathers in Hebron, Shilo, and Anatot. But the majority of Israelis are willing to relinquish the right to realize Jewish sovereignty and Jewish settlement at those Biblical sites, in proportion to Palestinian concessions. The vast majority of Palestinians are clearly aware that it is impossible for millions of refugees to return to their homes and land in Jaffa, Ramle, and Haifa.

Everyone knows that this is Israel’s red line. In an endless number of deliberations of a solution to the refugee problem and proposed solutions, a formula was suggested which would divide the “right of return” into two terms: “Right” and “return.” The right exists; it is not subject to appeal, nor is the somewhat problematic wording of UN Resolution 194, which recognizes that right, subject to appeal. But practical return to the geographic domain of the State of Israel is not feasible. Danny Rubinstein in Ha’aretz

There are several things wrong with this far too-clever formulation. For one, it is irrational to tell someone that he has a right to something, but in the same breath that he is forbidden from realizing it. What is the meaning of ‘right’ in this case?

Here in the United States there was a situation for many years in which blacks had the ‘right’ to vote, but were forbidden from exercising this right. People struggled and even gave their lives so that these rights could be realized, and ultimately they were.

Another problem is that granting this ‘right’, whether or not it is realized, implies that the Palestinian narrative that the land of Israel belongs to them, not to the present residents, is true. Is constitutes an admission that Jews do not have the ‘right’ to live there. Are we prepared to say “we are thieves, but the true owners are forbidden to take back their property?” Do we believe this?

And from a practical point of view: once we agree that they have a right to return, what argument do we use to prevent them from returning? “It would destroy the Jewish character of the state” might be meaningful to us, but who else would accept it? And why should they?

Indeed, this ‘compromise’ is not a compromise, it is a complete surrender in principle with the proviso that the physical surrender will take place at some later date.

Although Danny Rubinstein — who called Israel an ‘apartheid state’ at a UN conference in Brussels — is a particularly loose cannon, this idea has appeared in other circles as well.

It is to be hoped that Israeli leaders do not adopt this as a way to deal with Palestinian demands for a right of return at the November peace conference. They should make it quite clear that Jews live in Israel with full legitimacy and ownership of the land that they live on, and that there is no Palestinian ‘right of return’, realizable or otherwise.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, right of return

I got called “anti-Peace” again recently. But I am not anti-Peace, I very much wish for Peace between Israel and the Arabs so that my children who live in Israel can be safe, so that my son, who has been some form of soldier for the past ten years, can be an artist as he wishes to be.

But what I am is anti-‘peace’. What’s the difference?

A necessary condition for Peace is that the Arabs have stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel. A 10-year hudna, such as Hamas offers, for example, is not Peace because it is only a particular tactic in the struggle; the goal remains the same. Peace is more or less what Israel has with Jordan today.

And what is ‘peace’? ‘Peace’ is a situation in which Israel and the Arabs have signed an agreement which states that both sides want Peace and spells out what they will do to get it, but which is either impossible to implement or which one or both sides intends to circumvent. The Oslo Accord is a good example of ‘peace’. Papers were signed, concessions were made, but Yasser Arafat never wanted Peace, never held up his end of the agreements, and ultimately made war.

Some Israelis said from the beginning that Oslo was only ‘peace’, but most thought it would lead to Peace and were bitterly disappointed.

Most ordinary people, Israelis and Palestinians, probably want Peace, although some other things that they want are incompatible. But who wants ‘peace’?

The US wants ‘peace’. The Bush Administration wants it because an agreement will make them look good in history and because they think that they can get Syria to stop supporting Iraqi insurgents by forcing Israel to give them the Golan Heights. The US State Department wants ‘peace’ because it is basically pro-Arab and knows that ‘peace’ will weaken Israel and make the Saudis happy.

Mahmoud Abbas wants ‘peace’, because it will mean more aid from the US and Europe for him, and because it will weaken Israel and serve as a stage on the way to replacing Israel with an Arab state.

Hamas and Syria want neither Peace nor ‘peace’. They do not want to help Abbas or the US. Hamas’ constituency will not accept even ‘peace’. Syria does not want ‘peace’, because ‘peace’ would (as Barry Rubin argues in The Truth About Syria) remove the excuse used by the Assad regime to oppress its population, drain the economy, and exploit Lebanon. Assad would much prefer the status quo without the Golan Heights to an agreement that would make him give up his influence in Lebanon.

The Israeli government is in an interesting position. Although Oslo taught them the difference between Peace and ‘peace’, ‘peace’ is very important to the Americans who are important to Israel. The international media, the UN and NGOs, the EU, Tony Blair, etc. — they all seem to think (or pretend) that ‘peace’ is Peace.

So the PM and the Foreign Minister need to pretend that they think ‘peace’ is Peace and are enthusiastic about it — otherwise they will be called “anti-Peace”.

It’s not a problem for me.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, peace

My wife tells me that I worry too much. “Don’t borrow trouble”, she says. Well, here are a few of the things I worry about:

Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist proxies
The “Mutual Assured Destruction” of the Cold War was effective at preventing atomic war because both sides knew exactly who their enemy was, and where he lived. And also, to tell the truth, that regardless of what one thought about them, the leaders on both sides were not the type to get their jollies from the idea of incinerating their enemies. None of this is true today.

The internalization of antisemitism in human belief
It seems that there’s been antisemitism as long as there have been Jews (and even in places where there were not Jews), but the power of modern mass media and its deliberate employment by Israel’s enemies has caused half the world to take the idea that Jews and Israel are the embodiment of evil as an non-controversial given.

The development of radical Islam as normative Islam
For various reasons, from the simple psychological pull to extremes to complex political phenomena, more and more of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are coming to hold radical forms of belief which promote violent and aggressive action in the name of Islam.

The loss of intellectual and moral vitality in the West
While the academic establishment rewards utter nonsense and seems to have entirely forgotten the notion of objective truth, political and business leaders pursue personal wealth at the expense of their constituents, customers, employees, stockholders, etc.

That’s probably enough for now. I can’t help worrying, it’s in the genes.

Technorati Tags: insomnia