Showing posts with label rejectionist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rejectionist. Show all posts

Sunday, September 03, 2023

Diplomacy and peacemaking is not a smooth process. It requires a huge amount of preparation, planning and flexibility. 

It is always illuminating to look behind the scenes of the Oslo process. Gidi Grinstein, the youngest person at Camp David in 2000, is releasing his account of the events that he witnessed as well as his opinions of what to do moving forward to mark the 30th anniversary of Oslo.

His book, "(In)sights: Thirty Years of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process"  is his attempt to set the record straight after so many others gave their own versions of what happened at Camp David. 

Grinstein writes from the perspective of someone who truly wants to see peace. No one can doubt his love of Israel and Zionism - he was part of the team that founded Birthright Israel - but his perspective is decidedly on the Israeli Left.

I found his account fascinating, but perhaps not for the reasons he intended.

Obviously Grinstein tries to spin the events towards his own politics. Instead of giving a straight chronological account of what happened, he spends a great deal of time on the "sausage" behind each negotiating point and then an overview of what has happened since then, along with his own opinions as to where things failed and what Israel should have done instead, in retrospect.

While Grinstein was the junior member at Camp David, he is perhaps the one person with the most knowledge of the big picture. He served as the Secretary and Coordinator of the Israeli Delegation for the Negotiations with the PLO from 1999-2001 under Ehud Barak.

Grinstein admires Barak a great deal, but his description of Barak is of someone who is cold and calculating, who is more than willing to throw his own people under the bus for his own ends. He keeps his own cards close to his vest, so no one working for him has a clear idea of what their goals are. Grinstein extols Barak as "the smartest man in the room" who keeps his people working in a "matrix" of smaller tasks, while only Barak knows his real plan. This means that Barak creates his own backchannels to undermine the people officially working for him when he deems it necessary, he bypasses the chain of command, and he ensures plausible deniability.

Which, when you think about it, is a lot like Yasir Arafat. 

Before he worked for the Prime Minister's office, Grinstein worked for the Economic Cooperation Foundation. The ECF, founded in 1990, was itself one of those backchannels for creating relationships with, and building a peace plan with, the PLO. It was a power that helped bring about the Oslo Accords. 

To me, one of the most jarring parts of the book was where Grinstein describes how the ECF helped end Bibi Netanyahu's first term as prime minister. The ECF, which worked hand in glove with Yitzchak Rabin, opposed Netanyahu - and this Israeli think-tank colluded with the PLO to bring him down. Netanyahu demanded more concessions from the PLO in order to keep the Oslo process going, and the ECF convinced their friends in the PLO to pretend to agree to Netanyahu's demands, prompting him to sign the Hebron Agreement and the Wye River Memorandum based on lies. This caused the right wing of his coalition to revolt and new elections were called that brought Barak into office, just as the ECF intended.

Grinstein seemingly has no compunction about Israelis collaborating with the US and PLO to bring down an Israeli prime minister. The cause of peace justifies all.

Even Grinstein admits that the peace negotiators never really seriously thought about the possibility that Arafat had no intention to really sign a permanent agreement that would end the conflict and what would follow. They became friends with the PLO negotiators, and he lovingly describes how well his team would be treated when they visited Bethlehem or Ramallah and the personal friendships they struck up with the Palestinian team. He mentions and is fully aware of the wave of terror attacks during the 1990s, Arafat's incendiary speeches in Arabic, his actions being fully consistent with his "phased plan" to destroy Israel, but all of that is brushed aside in the pursuit of peace, just as using underhanded methods to bring down an Israeli prime minister is framed as a positive thing.

The only person who predicted the failure of the Oslo process, and that it would lead into war, was US Ambassador to Egypt Daniel Kurtzer, who hosted the negotiators for a Shabbat dinner. He had better insight than the entire Israeli peace delegation, who didn't even consider this.

Barak bet everything on the idea that Arafat could be pressured into signing an agreement. He was wrong. But there is very little hand-wringing on that mistake that brought about the second intifada. In fact, Grinstein emphasizes that Arafat was not the direct instigator of the intifada - even as he admits that Arafat had planned for such an event months ahead of time, and that his own security forces, trained and armed by the US, turned their weapons against Israeli forces in the first days of the fighting. He emphasizes that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that supposedly triggered the war was fully coordinated with the PA but still doesn't blame the PA for its role - instead noting that the Jerusalem police response to the violence helped escalate it. 

Again, Grinstein isn't blind. But he seems to purposely keep one eye closed. 

Similarly, he emphasizes that, in retrospect, Barak should not have pushed for an all or nothing deal, and worked towards a provisional Palestinian state that could be further refined with later negotiations. This, of course, would have been a huge concession by Israel to recognize a Palestinian state up front. But while he praises the Quartet for employing that idea in their Road Map for Peace, he glosses over that the Palestinian leaders rejected the Road Map out of hand, and have consistently said that they do not want a provisional state. 

Also jarring is that, as far as I can tell, the Israeli peace negotiating teams -- both Track I and Track II - apparently were exclusively made up of non-religious males, overwhelmingly if not exclusively Ashkenazic. He notes that the only Israeli woman at Camp David was a secretary. He never mentions that any of the participants in the many meals hosted in the West Bank or Europe had to make accommodations for kosher food. Most of Israeli society is not represented by these peacemakers, who all seem to believe that they are smarter than anyone else in how to look at the big picture, and not really self-critical when it comes to their miscalculations and false assumptions that led to the failure of the peace process. Diversity was not a priority for these liberals. 

There is a lot of good information in this book, and it is illuminating - sometimes in ways that it is not meant to be. It is not edited well, unfortunately - for example,  it talks extensively about the ECF without explaining what it is, and there are still numerous typos and misspellings (French Premier "Shirak"), it repeats the same anecdotes a couple of times. Hopefully these will be fixed by the time it goes to press. 

The book is planned to be released in Israel in two weeks and in the US in December.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 30, 2023

A new poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and  Survey Research of both Israelis and Palestinians finds that while both sides have hardened their positions towards the other, the Palestinians are far more rejecting of any framework that allows Jews to have any rights in the land.

An absurd 84% of Palestinians say that "the suffering of Palestinians is unique throughout the human history." Clearly no one teaches history in Palestinian schools. (80% of Israeli Jews say this about Jews, but they have a couple of thousand years of evidence behind that opinion. The worst event in Palestinian history wouldn't make it into the top 10 of the worst things in Jewish history.)

90% of Palestinians say "Since Palestinians are the victims of ongoing suffering, it is their moral right to do anything in order to survive." To Palestinians, "anything" means even the most immoral crimes against humanity. While 68% of Israelis felt the same way about Jews, I am certain that they interpreted the question differently than Palestinians do: Jews would not include genocide against others in that "anything," but I am fairly sure that Palestinians do.

The moral divide is stark in the responses to the question of whether each group wants to promote good relations with the other. Most Israelis do; the vast majority of Palestinians do not.


Israelis want to co-exist with Palestinians; Palestinians do not want to co-exist with Israelis. How much more obvious can it be that Palestinians do not support any sort of peace with Israeli Jews?

The Palestinians' idea of their "vital goals" is also something instructive - and largely unreported. While 36% said an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and a Palestinian state were vital goal, nearly as many said the "right of return" of Palestinians to the hated Israel is a "vital goal" - meaning they don't want their own people to live in their own state, and would prefer that they are used as a means to destroy the Jewish state.

But beyond that, 19% said that building a state based on "religious values"  was a vital goal - more than double the mere 9% who said that democracy is a vital goal. Meaning that more than twice as many Palestinians want a state based on the Quran than one based on democratic values.
These extremist, rejectionist positions are always swept under the rug in Western reporting and "expert analysis," which still claims that most Palestinians want a two state solution. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 



Sunday, July 09, 2023

Last week, Peter Beinart tweeted this:

People in Jenin can't become citizens of the country in which they live. Can't vote for the govt that determines if they live or die. Can't return to the lands from which their families were expelled. This underlies everything happening now. The American press rarely mentions it

Beinart complains that Palestinians do not have a state of their own where they can vote and make their own decisions, but wants to imply that this is entirely Israel's fault..

He blocks me but I tweeted a response:

Palestinian Arabs rejected plans that would have given them their own state in 1937,  1947, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2014, and 2020. They will not accept the existence of a Jewish state on ANY  borders.
This underlies everything happening now, and for the past 8 decades.

And Peter Beinart  never mentions it   - because his agenda exactly matches theirs.

I decided to make the point in a more acerbic way, with a cartoon:


The more my memes and cartoons tell the truth, the angrier the Israel haters (masquerading as "pro-Palestinians") get. And the many angry responses to this cartoon prove my point.

Are you willing to give a bunch of squatters your land?  If you say yes then you are a liar.

That's because the Zionists are dishonest and have an agenda of occupying most of the middle east by force anyway. There is no reaching an agreement with Zionists. People see you.

Revisionist history. Didn’t learn from the pain of Holocaust denial.

thats like asking are you willing to have a gang of theiving ni66ers move into your house?  ckuf NO, every single time

Without proper peace deal & Jerusalem NO.

Everybody knows those are false. Zionists need war to survive. They need chaos. Only with chaos and war, they can expand - under pretext of “defending themselves”. If there was peace, Isra*l won’t be as big as it is now. 

Can you agree to share your house ownership with me?

Can I come to your house and live in one of your rooms coz my parents kicked me out?  I'll slowly occupy your whole house & then kick you out.

Off course “BIG NO” It’s like asking: 🤔 do you accept Zionists who are coming from Western Europe and some African countries to steal your homeland!!? Zionists are very sick

Zionists stole Palestine through terrorism and massacres. WHY would any government agree to be occupied? Especially by European Jewish terrorists?

The history of your settler colonialism proves the opposite you never wanted any coexistence.
The analogy with the house is false. There was no Palestinian state before 1948 and there isn't one now. The peace offers aren't taking away land - they are offering a nation where none existed. The ones since 1948 involve Israel willingly giving away land it controls, something that is practically unprecedented in history. 

But there is a second layer to the responses. Only some say it explicitly, but the message is that there is a preference for Palestinians to remain stateless and without a nation than for them to join the community of nations. 

Mahmoud Abbas himself said, in retrospect, that the Palestinians should have accepted the 1947 UN partition plan. But you cannot turn back the clock and say that you retroactively accept the peace plan of 75 years ago. 

What the Palestinians and their supporters simply refuse to accept is the existence of a Jewish state on any borders. That is the only consistent position that they have had throughout history. And today, Palestinians and their "supporters" maintain that even if there is a two state solution somehow, it is only meant to be a stage on their path to destroy Israel altogether. 

Chaim Weizmann famously argued when the 1937 Peel Commission recommended a tiny, indefensible Jewish state - covering only 20% of the British Mandate, divided geographically, with no Jerusalem - that “The Jews would be fools not to accept it, even if the Jewish state were the size of a tablecloth." He understood that something is better than nothing.

It is a lesson that the Palestinian side strenuously disagrees with: they would prefer nothing if the something includes the existence of a Jewish state. 

It is worse even than a zero-sum mentality. They are claiming that they would prefer not being citizens of any country than to accept a Jewish state on any borders. Instead of compromising and getting something, they prefer to remain with nothing, as long as there is a Jewish state as well. 

This isn't just spite - this is pure antisemitic hate. And the only people this attitude hurts are Palestinians themselves. 

Israel, sometimes with reservations, accepted all these peace plans and frameworks. Palestinians rejected them all, even though they all would have given them the independence they supposedly want. What their responses to these plans, as well the responses to this cartoon, prove is that it was never about gaining an independent Palestinian state but the destruction of the Jewish state. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 11, 2023



The third Negev Forum met this week in Abu Dhabi.

The forum has participants from the United States, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco as well as Egypt.

The goal of the forum is to advance multilateral projects in the fields of health, regional security, education, water and food security, tourism and energy. It is not a peace summit - it is very focused on specific mutual interests to countries in the Middle East, to benefit all.

The US tried to get Palestinians to join the meeting. They refused. And Jordan said that they won't attend unless the Palestinians do.

Now, why won't the Palestinians attend? Certainly they could benefit from talks about health, water and energy. According to Arab News, the reason they refuse is "Palestinians view the forum as an attempt to sideline its key demands of independence and an end to the Israeli occupation."

But that is not what the forum is about. 

The only way the Palestinian refusal makes sense is if you understand the Palestinian mindset. 

They have joined lots of international forums - but, invariably, they use those platforms to attack Israel. Whether it is about the world's oceans, or climate, or women, or the disabled, the Palestinians enthusiastically join - and then the entire session grinds to a halt as a Palestinian representative uses his allotted time to bash Israel. 

To them, these conferences not a means to join the world community as an equal member. They aren't for information exchange. They aren't to work together to solve problems. To Palestinians, international foraare arenas of war, nothing more. 

But the Negev Forum accepts Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East. It isn't marginalized - it is a key player. And the Palestinians cannot stomach the idea that Israel itself is considered legitimate. 

Palestinians cannot hijack this conference. So boycotting, and shaming Jordan to do the same, it meant to somehow injure the conference altogether.

This has nothing to do with settlements, or human rights, or international law. The Palestinians refuse to attend a regional forum where they would benefit because it accepts Israel's existence - and Palestinian leaders still hope Israel will disappear.

Their childish behavior here is further proof that they have no interest in peace or becoming a responsible state. The entire purpose of the Palestinian national movement has always been the destruction of Israel. And they think that boycotting this event helps that goal in a tiny, tiny way.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, December 22, 2022

From Ian:

JCPA: The EU's Secret Palestinian Building Plan for Area C
Its actions in unilaterally advancing a Palestinian state in Area C, territories assigned to Israel both administratively and regarding security responsibilities by both the PLO and Israel in a mutually signed agreement of September 28, 1995, represent a violation of international law and call into question the EU’s ability to continue serve in any capacity as diplomatic interlocutor.

The EU’s unpublished policy plan also violates Israel’s legal rights as affirmed by the EU at Oslo and reveals a pro-PLO bias that renders the EU as de facto supporters of the official PA policy of allocating payments to Palestinian terrorists who were killed, captured, or imprisoned as a result of their jihadi terror activity. Israel and the international community bear a responsibility to reveal the EU’s gross violations of its diplomatic responsibilities and those of Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as well as European Commission President Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen.

This latest revelation is only the most recent example of EU malfeasance as an entrusted diplomatic interlocutor. Ambassador Alan Baker, former legal advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, pointed out in a July 2022 policy brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, that EU member states restored funding to six Palestinian civil society organizations designated by Israel as terror-supporting organizations, rejecting evidence submitted by Israel that these organizations are linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, an EU-, U.S.-, and Israel-designated terror group.

As Baker notes, contrary to its special status as witness, sponsor, and facilitator of the Oslo Accords, the EU and specifically Norway have consistently conducted a one-sided, partisan policy aimed at prejudging the issues that are still to be negotiated between the parties, such as the issue of Jerusalem and the permanent status of the territories.

Baker added that, “Facilitating international funding to support and encourage Palestinian terror, including providing funds for salaries and benefits of terrorists serving prison sentences, is the antithesis of any genuine international action to promote human rights, peace, and stability in the Middle East.”
Melanie Phillips: The European Union’s subversion of Israel
Now this is out in the open. The E.U. can no longer pretend it is merely contributing to Palestinian “civil society.” Yet even now, there is no mention of any of this by the Western mainstream media. In Britain, the BBC has instead been busy fomenting yet more anti-Israel feeling by telling its audience that Netanyahu has finalized “the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history.”

Similar denunciations by Israel’s outgoing leftist prime minister, Yair Lapid, have been fueling hysteria in the West, not least among liberal-minded Diaspora Jews.

These have been heard describing the yet-to-be-formed Israeli government as “horrific,” and have already been blaming Israel for putting them in danger as a result.

Now the E.U. has been engulfed by revelations of a corrupt relationship with Qatar—the sponsor of Hamas and mortal foe of Israel. While details are still unfolding, this axis isn’t surprising. There’s a nexus between the universalism embodied by the E.U. and the desire to bring down Israel, the nation state of the most particularist culture in the world.

And it’s no coincidence that the majority of British Jews, who in 2016 voted for the U.K. to remain in the E.U. partly through their ludicrous belief that universalism actually protected them against antisemitism, have also swallowed many of the lies about the Palestinian cause—and, like their liberal American counterparts, are now clutching their pearls over Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and Maoz.

While concerns about the extremism of this trio are justifiable, the people they most resemble are the Maccabees. They were Jewish religious zealots who fought the Hellenized Jews because the Hellenizers were adopting Greek universalist precepts and, as a result, taking a wrecking ball to Jewish practices such as circumcision and Shabbat observance.

But the Maccabees fought and defeated the Jews’ Greek oppressors. While being rightly excoriated for violent extremism, the heroes of the Hanukkah story saved the Jewish people from tyranny.

It may be that today’s Maccabean Three are channeling Jewish history once again.


Israeli MKs slam EU policy document for ignoring Jewish land rights in West Bank
A group of 40 Israeli lawmakers led by Likud MK Amichai Chikli sent an open letter on Tuesday to the European Union protesting an official policy document that they say denies historical Jewish ties to the so-called Area C of the West Bank.

The classified June 2022 document exposed by Israeli media gives an overview of the continental bloc's policy toward Area C of the territory, which is fully administered by Israel.

According to the Oslo Accords, a series of interim peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians signed in the 1990s, this territory is supposed to be gradually relinquished to Palestinian control, with an option for land swaps under a final status agreement. The document shows that the EU is working in concert with the Palestinian Authority to integrate Area C into a future Palestinian state.

The EU criticizes Israeli policies of building in Area C of the West Bank, which the Israeli government refers to by its biblical name — Judea and Samaria.

In the letter, lawmakers criticize EU policies in the West Bank as favoring the Palestinians and ignoring the historical claims of the Jewish people to the land.

"In the last decade, we've witnessed the increasing involvement of the European Union in construction, planning road projects and erecting water and solar energy facilities in hundreds of outposts in Area C," Chikli told i24NEWS.

"The document uncovered this week shows that this is a deliberate strategy that completely ignores Israel's position and sovereignty in the area.

Moreover, the construction moves show that the goal is for the most part to interrupt the sequences of Jewish settlement and to create choke rings around the settlement blocks that will make it difficult for Israel to exercise its sovereignty in the future." "These moves constitute serious damage to the relations between the European Union and the State of Israel."
Israeli lawmakers slam EU policy document on West Bank

Ex-Israeli Military Officers Call EU's Area C Policy "Hostile and Aggressive"
Letter from Israel Defense and Security Forum calls EU policy 'to advance illegal Palestinian development' a threat to Israel's national security

An Israeli organization consisting of more than 16,000 former military, security, and police officers called the revelation that the European Union is working on a Palestinian takeover of Area C of the West Bank "an act of blatant hostility and aggression."

In an open letter sent Wednesday from the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF) and addressed to Dimiter Tzantchev, head of the EU delegation to the State of Israel, the NGO slammed the EU for its confidential policy document revealed by media outlets on Tuesday.

The EU policy document, which was leaked by Israeli media, gives an overview of the EU's policy toward Area C, which is administered by Israel. The document shows that the EU is working with the Palestinian Authority on making Area C a part of a future Palestinian state. The EU criticizes Israeli policies of building in Area C, which the Israeli government calls by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria.

"According to our professional understanding of national security, the dominant terrain of Judea and Samaria in Area C is key strategic terrain that controls or can threaten most of the modern State of Israel’s infrastructure and strategic assets," the letter stated. "The EU’s reported clandestine activity to undermine Israeli control in Area C and to advance illegal Palestinian development in those areas constitutes a clear and present threat to the security of the State of Israel, and is an act of blatant hostility and aggression."

The letter was signed by 12 former military officers and includes the names of dozens more. The IDSF describes itself as a "Zionist, security-based movement" that includes senior officers from all branches of Israel's armed forces, as well as researchers, academics, and Israeli citizens.

The founder and director of the IDSF Brig. Gen. (Res.) Amir Avivi told i24NEWS that the EU's activity undermines the Oslo Accords, which established Israel's control over Area C.

"These areas are crucial to Israel's existence in the long term. It's an existential issue," said Avivi.

"We are the only ones who can define what we need, talking about national security, talking about the Jewish national aspirations. No European country can decide for us what we need, and certainly not go against an accord that everybody should adhere to."

Thursday, December 01, 2022

During the UN partition negotiations in 1947, the Arab side said they wanted a single Arab state. When that didn't fly, they said they wanted am Arab state that would protect Jewish rights. And when the partition vote passed, within hours, Arabs attacked Jews on the streets, showing how much they would have respected those Jewish rights. 

Meanwhile, as I reported this morning, the Arab states had no interest in a Palestinian Arab state - they were planning to divide up Palestine as soon as they could after the British left. 

And also, as always, the Palestinians themselves want their "refugees" not to help build their state - but to "return" to what they consider a criminal, apartheid, racist state. 

Of course, these same Arab states didn't say a word about an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when they controlled those areas. 

If the goal of Palestine is to have an independent state for Palestinian Arabs, why didn't they do it then?  If the goal is to give Palestinians rights, then why do Arab states not give them rights today? Why did they pivot between the ideas of a Palestinian state and none, and back again in 1968?

If we take the Arabs and Palestinians at their word, none of this makes sense. Their claims as to what they want - independence, freedom, justice - do not fit with their actions. Especially since they have rejected every plan that would have given them exactly that. 

There is only one consistent thread that explains all of this - the unifying theory of Arab attitudes towards Israel. And that is antisemitism. 

The goal has never been to build a Palestinian state. Even the Palestinians don't want that. They have had more time between Oslo and today than the Zionists had between the Mandate and 1948 to build the functioning apparatus of a state - and unlike the Zionists, they have had lots of aid and EU consultants  to do exactly that. Yet today their government is a joke, a dictatorship under the control of one person, with institutions that are corrupt or incompetent. It is all window dressing, not a serious attempt at building a real government. 

Two recent cartoons in Felesteen illustrate a great truth, especially on the 75th anniversary of the UN Partition resolution.



"Palestine" is not meant to be a state, and it never was. It is meant to be a weapon, a means to end the Jewish state. That's what it was in 1947 and that's what it is today. 

That's how Palestinian leaders look at it. That's how Jordan and Egypt and Syria still look at it. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

From Ian:

What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?
Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land.

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.

Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence.

75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation:
“Therefore, I present today to this UN organization, the title of international legitimacy in this world, with a formal request to implement General Assembly resolution 181, which formed the basis for the two-state solution in 1947…”

[WAFA, English edition, Official PA news agency, Sept. 23, 2022]


In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities.

First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.

[Boston Evening Globe, May 1, 1948]

While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.

In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring:
“This Organization [The PLO] does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area”.

Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state.
The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel
When the warrior poet Avraham “Yair” Stern founder and leader of Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) who believed that the British had to be forced out with assassinations and bombs and would never leave voluntarily, was killed after being captured and handcuffed by British detectives on Feb. 12, 1942, no Jew could celebrate his death.

But the leaders of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine, already then led by David Ben-Gurion, viewed Stern’s death as a gain for the national cause rather than a loss—and not only because the poet and his followers were reckless political dilettantes: Some fantasized alliances with Mussolini, even the Nazis, as well as Arab nationalists in a common anti-British cause.

At a time of maximum danger—Rommel seemed to be on the verge of conquering Egypt, with Palestine next—Ben-Gurion and his allies doggedly pursued cooperation with the British in spite of bitter disappointments. Perhaps the worst of these was the May 1939 White Paper which limited the immigration of Jews to 75,000 over five years, sentencing countless European Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis. Yet Ben-Gurion believed, and rightly so, that the British were the least-bad allies the Jews could have.

Nor did Ben-Gurion have much choice. The Americans had refused to enter the war even after the Germans had conquered most of Europe. They still refused to act when the Germans seemed on the verge of defeating Russia, which would soon mean Britain’s defeat, too. On Dec. 2, 1941, German tanks were 14.7 miles from Moscow’s Red Square. America was only at war when Stern died in 1942 because the Japanese had attacked them.

It was unimaginable that the Americans would intervene on behalf of the Jews in the distant Middle East—indeed the U.S. only lifted its total weapons embargo on Israel in August 1962!—to allow the sale of defensive antiaircraft missiles, seven years after the Soviets had agreed to deliver bombers to Nasser’s Egypt (part of a huge Soviet weapons gift package misrepresented as “Czech” at the insistence of the CIA to avert hostility from their own man Nasser: That always-wrong agency was betting on Nasser’s mighty Arab nationalism rather than on seemingly puny Israel).

When Avraham Stern was killed, the communists still gave all their loyalty to Stalin. According to Ben-Gurion and the majority of Jewish leaders in Palestine, Churchill was still the best bet the Jews could have, even after the exposure of his crass duplicity toward the Yishuv. Having vehemently condemned the May 1939 White Paper to please his Jewish benefactors while out of office and short of ready cash, Churchill refused to change the policy once he became prime minister—thus denying escape from death to millions, and incidentally preventing my father, mother, two brothers, and myself from leaving Arad, Romania, to reach safety by a comfortable Orient Express ride to Istanbul and thence Haifa. A 5-inch-by-2-inch Palestine entry slip was enough to obtain Bulgarian and Turkish transit visas, but the British refused to issue them, even in 1944—by which point detailed eyewitness accounts and impeccable documentation of the operation of every part of the Nazi killing machine had reached London and Washington.

In spite of all that, on the evidence available at the time, Ben-Gurion was still mostly right and Avraham Stern was still mostly wrong. The British did eventually, and very reluctantly, agree to the U.N.’s termination of their mandatory rule on May 15, 1948, thus allowing the Jews to fight for their state. The qualifier is necessary because a factor in the British decision was the terrorist attacks inspired by Stern, including the July 22, 1946, bombing of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel whose 91 killed set a deadliest-attack record that lasted for decades.
I Was Robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel
Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria, Egypt ruled over Gaza and Syria ruled over the Golan Heights. For those that do not understand the importance of the sentence above, it means that all the lands that the Arabs call “occupied” were under Arab control between 1948-1967! Was there peace?

It was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that built the refugee camps and stuck their own Arab brothers and sisters in them to create a refugee problem in order to bash Israel. If creating a new State called Palestine was the goal and all the Arab countries are in favor of such a State, why didn’t Jordan Egypt and Syria help the “Palestinian” Arabs start a State during those 19 years (1948-1967).

Israel liberated Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan from Arab States occupation and it has nothing to do with an Arab people who call themselves (since 1964) Palestinians. We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.

You are probably saying this is enough to completely destroy the anti-Israel propaganda, but it gets much better (or worse). Today, Jordan is ruled by a king.

Over 75% of Jordan’s population are Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”! So why hasn’t the majority of “Palestinians” taken over? Because Jordan does not give them full rights!

In fact, Jordan has the largest “Palestinian” refugee camps!

Where is the UN? Where is UNWRA? Where are the SJWs? Where are all the Leftists who care about Human Rights?

Just to sum up, Jordan sits on 77% of British Palestine and has a majority of over 75% of Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”. Why aren’t the Arabs, who so want to create a Palestinian State, not fighting over 77% of the Land where they are a 75% majority? Why are they fighting over a small sliver of 23% where they are the minority? The answer is simple.

This has never been a struggle to build a new state called Palestine, it’s a struggle to destroy the one called ISRAEL.

Now, can we start fighting for truth and stop giving into false diplomacy that is based on lies?


Thursday, November 03, 2022



There are lots of proofs that the Palestinians don't really want their own state, and that the entire point of Palestinian nationalism is just to destroy Jewish nationalism. 

Examples include how they have rejected every peace plan that leaves Israel as a viable state, their insistence on the "right to return" where their own people would live in their enemy's land rather than their own, and the contradiction between telling the world they want a two state solution while none of their own maps show Israel. Not to mention how Palestinian Arabs showed no interest in their own state in the West Bank when Jordan controlled it:  when the Jews don't control it, they no longer covet it.

Here's another proof.

This week was the Arab Summit in Algeria, and the Crown Prince of Jordan gave a speech. He said, "As for Jerusalem, it is the center of our unity and our common defense of the identity of the entire nation, and Jordan, under the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in it, will continue, in cooperation with you and our brothers in the Palestinian National Authority, its historic role in protecting and caring for holy sites."

I have never seen the Palestinians say a single word against Jordan taking the role of custodian for the holy sites in what they consider their capital.

What kind of nation voluntarily cedes control of part of its capital city to an entirely different country? No self-respecting national movement would ever do that! 

Even though Jordan insists that its agreement with Israel leaves it with custodianship over the holy places, the text doesn't say that - just that Israel will respect the Jordanian wishes but not that Jordan has any decision-making ability over any part of Jerusalem. Israel has not ceded a square centimeter of Jerusalem to Jordan, despite Jordan's claims.

But the Palestinians have said directly that they intend for Jordan to control the holy sites in any fantasy peace deal that gives the Old City to the Palestinians. 

The Palestinians don't want sovereignty. They only want to deny Jewish sovereignty. And I challenge you to find a single decision the Palestinian leadership has ever made that contradicts this assertion. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, October 23, 2022

From Ian:

The gaping holes in the UN Commission of Inquiry report
What is missing from this report as context for this difficult environment is startling. Not a word about Palestinian rejectionism for decades. Not a word on Israeli steps that completely contradict the narrative that Israel is all about permanent occupation and annexation.

Not a word about Israeli efforts to make Palestinian life better, despite Palestinian rejection and terrorism in the form of thousands of Palestinian workers making a decent living working in Israel every day. Not a word about the anti-democratic forces and corruption at work in Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, which have greatly contributed to the ills of the Palestinian people. Not a word about an educational system in the Palestinian community, which preaches and teaches hatred of Israel and Jews and the virtues of violence against the Jewish state.

Most significantly, related to the two major themes of the report — that Israel is engaged in moving toward permanent control of the West Bank and its Palestinian population and toward de facto annexation — is the complete failure to mention numerous Israeli peace offers that would have transformed Palestinians lives, including through the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel’s offer at Camp David, then later at Taba, in 2000, would have meant the withdrawal of Israeli from most of the territory and the removal of most settlements. The Palestinians said no and turned to violence and suicide bombs.

Then came Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, including from all settlements, only to have Israel met with a Hamas takeover, and years of attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians. And then at Annapolis in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians one more opportunity to end the conflict and move toward a state as Israel withdraws, only to be met again with no response.

In sum, there are real issues to discuss. But it’s impossible to do that in a serious and responsible way when the approach is the kind of biased one that the COI report represents. The consequence of such one-sidedness is to make the Palestinians think once again that history is on their side in their decades-old rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. This delusion has been harmful to Palestinians and is repeated here once again.

At the same time, a report like this plays into the hands of those Israelis who see the world as against them and prefer the status quo rather than creative solutions and initiatives.

The bottom line: Israel will surely reject this report for what it is: a continuing of counterproductive, anti-Israel propaganda by an arm of the UN that has a long history of bias against the Jewish state.

At the same time, the reality of the situation in the territories, even though it does not reflect either Israeli permanence or annexation, demands Israeli initiatives on the ground to improve living conditions for the Palestinians and to open up new possibilities for negotiations and solutions – even if the Palestinians have not shown they are ready for either.


American Jews must give up the illusion that they have ‘no enemies’ to the left or the right
The final straw came in 2000, when Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a massive campaign rally in Boston. From the stage, I was told, his running mate, Winona LaDuke, shrieked, “We’re going to stop the slaughter in Palestine!” This would have been bad enough, given that it erased Israel’s name from the map and, with it, the numerous Jews then being murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the name of “Palestine.”

But what made my blood run cold was the description of what followed: The crowd howled its approval and rose to its feet in a standing ovation. At that moment, what I saw in my mind’s eye was Hitler and the great crowd rising as one to hail him. These people, I suddenly realized, wanted to kill me.

What followed was not merely anger, but a horrific sense of betrayal. I believed in the catechisms of the left. I felt that I was one of them. But now, I suddenly realized, they did not think I was one of them. And this was because, despite everything, I did believe that the Jews have a right, at the very least, to defend themselves. I now knew that my former comrades did not believe in that right. But I did, and I would fight for it.

I will not go into the long journey that followed, which led me to Zionism, aliyah and everything that came after. Suffice it to say, I rejected the left in its entirety, and became very right-wing for a very long time.

I can no longer count myself an ideological right-winger. I believe I have learned a great deal from both the left and the right, from the likes of Orwell and Camus along with Burke and C.S. Lewis. These days, I prefer to keep my own counsel. But that sense of betrayal has never left me, and I am still angry about it.

That many Jews on the right now feel the same way is painful but also, I regret to say, not particularly surprising. All non-Jewish movements contain people who believe very ugly things about the Jews. The left has Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the right has its “alt” contingent and now Kanye West.

But I must say, and perhaps this will comfort him, that I do not agree with Haworth’s despairing conclusion that “no one cares about us.” In fact, there are non-Jews on both the right and the left who care very deeply about the Jews, whether they be Ritchie Torres on the left or Meghan McCain on the right. Sometimes they are forced to fight a rearguard action against the haters, but they are there, they are not to be underestimated and we must work to embrace them all.

Indeed, for Jews to believe that we have “no enemies to the left” is as absurd as believing we have “no enemies to the right.” There is no single political movement—except Zionism—that is monolithically philo-Semitic. Jews, in the end, have no right or left. We have only ourselves and our friends or enemies, wherever they may be on the political spectrum. To wholly commit ourselves to one side or the other only sets us up for a rude awakening followed by a terrible disillusionment.
"Documentary Series Exposes 3,000 Hours of Vile Leftist Antisemitism Recorded by Swedish Spy"
Zvi Yehezkeli, an Israeli television journalist and documentarian who heads the Arab desk at News 13, on Sunday night is launching “Sh’tula” (implant), a five-episode espionage docu-series on Channel 13, which reveals for the first time authentic documentation of what goes on behind the scenes of human rights organizations operating in Judea and Samaria.

The series was three years in the making. “There are 3,000 hours of footage, all of which required legal backing, and the content features many characters,” Yehezkeli told Ma’ariv. “In general, this thing is explosive, with the possibility of international lawsuits, so this process has been crazy. And it’s also the longest series I’ve ever done.”

The series “Sh’tula” follows a pro-Palestinian young Swedish woman who came to Israel as a tourist to study architecture. She met someone from the Eli settlement who explained that there’s another side to the Israeli-Arab story.

“Slowly, she is gaining ground within the human rights organizations that operate in Judea and Samaria and is actually becoming an intelligence agent,” Yehezkeli relates. “After a year, she reaches the real leadership, the Hamas people, who reveal to her the mechanism of raising money for the organizations, and the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas headquarters in Europe and human rights organizations. This means that human rights organizations like BDS are operated by Hamas members.”

“It became a treasure trove of intelligence, including secrets that Hamas members told her and are documented on paper,” he continues. “So, we started building a series out of it. It’s very complicated because there’s a lot of use of hidden cameras, and we also have to protect her life.”

At some point, Yehez told Army Radio on Sunday, his spy recorded a European activist who confessed on tape that she wanted to see all the Jews dead, on both sides of the “green line,” arguing that their very existence was rooted in sin. Should be fun to watch, especially if at some point you thought European activists were fair and even-handed and wanted only to help poor suffering Arabs.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

I could have written five pages for the right hand side portion...

Friday, September 02, 2011

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive