FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I’ve called Abbas Zaki (عباس زكي), former PLO Ambassador to Lebanon and Fatah Central Committee member “my favorite Palestinian Arab” because he always honestly presents their point of view. Here he is explaining that the ultimate goal of the PLO is to destroy Israel, and not to create a state outside of the 1949 lines:

He also use a word that MEMRI (which employs qualified translators) renders as ‘scumbags’ to refer to Israeli PM Netanyahu, FM Lieberman and US President Obama (perhaps a reader who understands Arabic can pick out the word for me — it might come in handy the next time there is a local anti-Israel demonstration).

As Caroline Glick explains here, the unilateral action of the PLO marks the Palestinians’ official exit from the ‘peace process’ that began with the Oslo agreement in 1993.  Nevertheless, the ‘international community’ is likely to use this event as a reason to pressure Israel for more and more concessions in the name of the dead ‘peace process’, lest they allow the Security Council to pass a resolution that will admit ‘Palestine’ to the UN.

The letter that accompanies the application for admission to the UN (all the relevant documents are here) submitted by Palestinian ‘President’ Mahmoud Abbas reaffirms the Palestinian commitment to Oslo and the ‘peace process’, as well as UN resolutions 242 and 338, while at the same time contradicting them. The letter refers to multiple UN resolutions, including the partition resolution of 1947 that was never implemented — the Arabs rejected it and chose war — as well as the ‘rights’ of Arab ‘refugees’, etc. It is a mish-mash which makes little sense.

The formal application itself simply refers to the partition resolution (181-II) and the Palestinian “declaration of independence” of 1988, which did not specify the borders of Palestine. So whatever will be voted on in the Security Council will have to be more specific than this. It is impossible to admit a state of mind to the UN.

In truth, we know that the Palestinians do not expect a physical state to come out of this. What they do hope for is a legal platform to continue their diplomatic pressure on Israel — and I guarantee that they full well intend to continue their terrorism as well, although, as always, the Palestinian government will officially deny any connection to it and even, from time to time, condemn it.

If the Palestinians did want a physical state, they could have had one on numerous occasions. They could have one tomorrow, in the words of Melanie Phillips,

…all that is needed is for [Mahmoud] Abbas to say, in Arabic as well as English, that he accepts the right of Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, and that his own people will no longer wage war against it. If he were to say that, and to match those words by deeds to show he meant them – for example, by ending the incitement in the educational materials and media under his command to hatred and murder of Jews and Israelis – there would be peace and a state of Palestine.

This will not happen, because Mahmoud Abbas does not speak the truth about Palestinian aspirations. Abbas Zaki does.

Phillips refers to a “theater of the absurd” in which the media, Western governments, UN diplomats, etc. all pretend to believe  that both sides want peace, and it is only a question of finding the correct formula that will bring about a peaceful Palestinian state:

…the dominant assumption in the west, the assumption that underpins virtually every political utterance on the subject and every interview on the BBC and the reporting even in notionally pro-Israel papers such as the Times or Telegraph that a state of Palestine would end the Middle East conflict, is not only wholly mistaken but is to mis-state that conflict.

For peace to be achieved, the belligerent has to stop making war. The Arabs have made war on the Jews in their ancient homeland since Israel became a state and indeed for three decades before that. For a solution to be arrived at, it’s necessary correctly to state the problem. The problem is not the absence of a state of Palestine. The problem is that the Arabs want to get rid of Israel.

Just ask Abbas Zaki.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian statehood, Mahmoud Abbas, Abbas Zaki

Asher Palmer and son Yonatan -- murdered by Arab terrorists

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine.  I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. — Barack Obama, UN General Assembly, 21 September 2011

News item:

Israel Police Chief Yochanan Danino has confirmed that the victims of a tragic car crash Friday were murdered by terrorists, Channel 2 television reported Sunday afternoon. Previously, police stated that the crash was caused by driver error and was definitely not the result of an attack.

The dramatic change in approach followed a meeting Saturday night on autopsy findings in the deaths of the two victims, 25-year-old Asher Palmer and his infant son Yehonatan.

Arutz Sheva has obtained a document detailing findings from the scene of the crash. Among the evidence that at first failed, for unknown reasons, to convince police that terrorists may have been involved: a hole in the front windshield of the car, a massive rock found in the front seat with human blood on it, a tear in fabric of the steeling wheel cover and dust indicating a blow from the rock, and damage to Asher Palmer’s face suggesting an impact unrelated to the crash.

The autopsy and a CT scan of Asher Palmer’s face showed evidence of facial fractures caused by a rock.

— IsraelNN

Every single day, hundreds of rocks, blocks, stones, etc. are thrown at Jewish vehicles in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Arab towns or neighborhoods inside the Green Line. Sometime photographers are informed in advance that there will be exciting opportunities to view the heroic resistance to occupation. Throwing ‘stones’ (sometimes as big as a person’s head) is what Palestinian Arab adolescents do for entertainment. Even the great Columbia University ‘scholar’ Edward Said symbolically threw a stone across the Lebanese border at Israeli soldiers.

Let’s give them a state!

Update [9 Oct 0804 PDT]: The murderers have been arrested.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian statehood, terrorism, Palmer murder

The writer is an old friend of mine. I received this recently and thought it was clever, thought-provoking, and deserving of a wider audience. For what it’s worth, I would not expect Israel to strike Iran except to preempt an imminent attack.

PaRDeS of Chinese Mideast expert Yin Gang’s statement to Yossi Melman of Ha’aretz

by ‘Altalena’

To underscore China’s unique diplomatic policy, Yin made the following surprising statement: “China is opposed to any military action against Iran that would damage regional stability and interfere with the flow of oil. But China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran. For all these reasons, Israel and the Middle East need a country like China. Israel needs China’s power.”

— Ha’aretz: ‘China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran‘

The plain-truth peshat is that China needs a stable flow of Mideast oil . . . would take no action if Beijing were to learn that Israel was about to hit Iran . . . and should be regarded as a player by the countries of the Mideast.

The word-to-the-wise remez is that China could stop Israel from hitting Iran if it wanted to.

The subtext derash is that China is a great power whose needs Israel should take strongly into account when deciding what to do about Iran–not just, as may currently be the case, the views of the conventional big dogs, the US, the EU, Russia, and the Arab countries.

The eyes-only sod is that Beijing would be POSITIVELY THRILLED AND UTTERLY DELIGHTED if Israel were to kneecap Iran, which would result in a more stable supply of cheaper oil for China, as Iran with its limited reserves and high but dwindling population wants the highest possible price ASAP (in contrast to the Saudis, who want a moderate price over a very long term because their population is low and their reserves are huge) to serve the needs of those Iranians who are now alive and the few progeny who will survive them; aprés them le deluge.

Technorati Tags: Israel, China, Iran, pardes

Mahmoud Abbas speaks at Fatah convention in 2009 in front of an image of his mentor, Yasser Arafat

In my last post, I discussed President Obama’s speech at the UN. Today I want to quote a few snippets from the speech of Palestinian ‘president’ Mahmoud Abbas to the same body and elucidate the meaning therein:

I confirm, on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, which will remain so until the end of the conflict in all its aspects and until the resolution of all final status issues, the following:

Whatever the significance of the ‘reconciliation’ between Fatah and Hamas, Hamas is not a member of the PLO. Hence it is possible for the PLO to maintain its distance from a group which is generally recognized in the West as terrorist and racist, and with which Israel and many other nations will not negotiate. Although the PLO is also a terrorist and racist organization, it has officially denied this and its denials have been (foolishly) accepted by Israel and others.

1. The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the June 1967 war, in conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy and with the achievement of a just and agreed upon solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194, as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative which presented the consensus Arab vision to resolve the core the Arab-Israeli conflict and to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. To this we adhere and this is what we are working to achieve. Achieving this desired peace also requires the release of political prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons without delay.

The Palestinians as well as all the Arab states have always interpreted resolution 194 as calling for the ‘return’ of all Arab refugees and their descendants to ‘their original homes’ in Israel. It is important to realize that this is an inseparable part of their demand for statehood. It is one of the primary reasons — if not the primary reason that previous Israeli offers of as much as 97% of Judea/Samaria and large parts of Jerusalem were not accepted in 2000, 2001 and 2008.

Abbas implies that everyone of Palestinian descent has ‘rights’ to live in Israel, even those who are presently living in Judea, Samaria or Gaza:

The time has come to end the suffering and the plight of millions of Palestine refugees in the homeland and the Diaspora, to end their displacement and to realize their rights, some of them forced to take refuge more than once in different places of the world. (my emphasis)

Other PLO officials have been even more specific, stating that ‘refugees’ in the Palestinian state will not get Palestinian citizenship. Statehood, they want to make 100% clear, will not terminate refugee status or allow for their resettlement anywhere other than Israel.

The ideas of hereditary refugee status, refusal of resettlement, and a ‘right of return’ have never been accepted before in the history of refugee situations since WWII. And yet, the Arabs take this as a given. Of course this demand is nothing more than a demand to dissolve the Jewish state.

The issue of the prisoners is very important and is always mentioned. Although some may legitimately be called ‘political prisoners,’ many are murderers or responsible for causing grievous bodily harm to Israelis. Although Abbas claims that

4. Our people will continue their popular peaceful resistance to the Israeli occupation and its settlement and apartheid policies and its construction of the racist annexation Wall,

these violent prisoners will be soldiers in the continued ‘resistance’ after the Palestinian state is declared. Of course, he fails to mention Gilad Shalit who is being held for ransom simply because he is an Israeli and whose conditions of imprisonment are far worse than those of the Arab murderers in Israeli jails.

3. We adhere to the option of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in accordance with resolutions of international legitimacy. Here, I declare that the Palestine Liberation Organization is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the basis of the adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy and a complete cessation of settlement activities.

“Resolutions of international legitimacy” refers to the SC and GA resolutions that Abbas expects from the UN. With these in hand he is prepared to negotiate with Israel from a starting point of a ‘Palestine’ that includes all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with its capital in Jerusalem (“Al-Quds Al-Sharif”), and with a precondition that all “settlement activities” will end.

Consistent with his mention of the Arab Initiative, I understand this as the ‘implementation phase’ — the process of the evacuation of all Jewish residents of the territories, as well as the realization of the ‘rights’ of all ‘Palestinian refugees’ to settle in Israel or receive compensation. This is all he is prepared to ‘negotiate’!

None of this, he claims, violates the Oslo agreements:

2. The PLO and the Palestinian people adhere to the renouncement of violence and rejection and condemning of terrorism in all its forms, especially State terrorism, and adhere to all agreements signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.

But the 1993 Declaration of Principles, the main part of the Oslo agreement, says that

It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)…

It is understood that these [permanent status] negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

In other words, following resolutions 242 and 338, Israel will get “secure and recognized boundaries.” And the actual borders (etc.) will be determined by the permanent status negotiations between Israel and the PA — not the UN. So in fact the Palestinians are not adhering to previous agreements.

Abbas concluded the main part of his speech with a remarkably offensive passage, beginning thus:

I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough. It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence. (my emphasis)

For Abbas, there is no Jewish connection to the Holy Land. And his program is a program to end the “ongoing Nakba” of 63 years: Jewish control of any of it.

Technorati Tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian statehood, Israel

Mahmoud Abbas reacts to President Obama's UN speech. What could he have been expecting?

When I read the part of President Obama’s speech to the UN yesterday (May 21, 2011) that dealt with Israel and the Palestinians — which, by the way, was only a small part of it — I was surprised.

I had read Palestinian and Israeli reactions to it first, and judging from them, I would have thought it represented a major tilt toward Israel. But what I saw in the text was more or less a reiteration of prior positions. So why was Mahmoud Abbas covering his eyes, and why did Israeli PM Netanyahu thank Obama so effusively? Let’s look at what Obama said — and didn’t say.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Well, Abbas should have liked that. Obama emphasized his commitment to a Palestinian state and reaffirmed the plan that he put forward in May, pre-1967 lines plus swaps — and everything else in that plan, which I and many others felt represented a aharp pro-Palestinian shift in the US position.

Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Abbas has known for months that the US opposed a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN. There is nothing new here. Did Abbas harbor a secret hope that Obama would finally hand him Israel on a silver platter, with no compromises required? If so, where did he get that idea? Certainly not from the public statements of the President, which — no matter how pro-Palestinian they may have been — always called for an agreement between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Again, this is precisely what he said in May. But what comes next is interesting — not because there is any substantive policy change, but because of the tone:

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied. (my emphasis)

Here Obama recognizes:

1. The wider context of the conflict. It is not all about the Palestinians getting their ‘rights,’ an Israeli Goliath persecuting an Arab David. Israel is tiny, surrounded by hostile neighbors with large populations. It is in danger.
2. The fact of hateful  incitement against Israel and Jews by both the Palestinians and Israel’s other neighbors.
3. The part played by specifically Palestinian terrorism — the rockets and suicide bombers.
4. The real threat of Iran.

This directly contradicts the line of the anti-Zionist Left in the US and Europe.  It must have infuriated Obama’s friend Rashid Khalidi. And it isn’t the sort of thing advisers like Samantha Power would be likely to agree with.

And now comes the real zinger:

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

Although it is again not new in US policy, this indicates an understanding of the Israeli demand that Israel must be recognized as the nation of the Jewish people. It is in direct contradiction to the Palestinian position that there is no Jewish people (only a religion), and that Israel in fact ‘belongs’ to the Palestinian Arabs who should have the right to ‘return’ to their ‘original homes’ in Israel (where probably less than 1% of today’s ‘Palestinians’ ever lived).

Of course, I would have preferred an unequivocal statement that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish People. Nevertheless, I see the statement that Israel is our historic homeland as very significant. This may have been the moment that Abbas put his hand over his eyes.

And what didn’t he say?

He did not mention settlements or construction therein. He did not blame Israel or PM Netanyahu for the failure of bilateral negotiations. He did not make any new demands on Israel.

From a diplomatic point of view there is absolutely nothing new. But in a rhetorical sense, it was a very pro-Israel speech.

So we’re left with this question:

Was this a true expression of heretofore hidden warmth toward the Jewish state and its leadership, a warmth which was definitely not present in Obama’s Cairo speech, his Arab Spring speech, or his treatment of Netanyahu on several occasions?

Or was it a cynical exercise to mollify pro-Israel American voters who have found his policy abhorrent, a carefully crafted way to give the impression of a changed policy without actually changing it?

You decide.

Technorati Tags: Obama, UN, Israel, Palestinians