Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Elder of Ziyon
Reader Greg points out the Australians for Palestine website, where we see this graphic prominently featured:
So-called "pro-Palestinian" advocates don't even try very hard to say they believe in a two state solution or in Israel continuing to exist.
Even though Australians for Palestine's Statement of Principles pretends to advocate for a two-state solution, they say:
In other words, Israel has no rights over even the parts of Jerusalem west of the Green Line.
But...
How to resolve these two paragraphs? Clearly the first one justifies terror, but the second pretends to condemn it. Chances are that they simply define "terror" as something only Israel does. Problem solved!
Finally,
Now, note what these principles do not say.
Not a single word of responsibility for Arab countries to treat their Palestinian "guests" as equal citizens of their countries. Not a word about the systemic discrimination that Palestinian Arabs suffer in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere. Not a thing about the conditions in the camps that hundreds of thousands still live in, nor a call to dismantle them. Nothing about inter-Palestinian Arab squabbles and unifying the cause.
All of its concrete demands are against Israel. It advocates "resistance" against Israel, it advocates boycotts and sanctions against Israel and advocates destroying Israel demographically.
So why exactly is it considered "pro-Palestinian"?
Even though Australians for Palestine's Statement of Principles pretends to advocate for a two-state solution, they say:
...all of Jerusalem remains the subject of final status negotiations because of its strategic importance in reconnecting the northern region of the West Bank to the southern region.
In other words, Israel has no rights over even the parts of Jerusalem west of the Green Line.
Australians for Palestine upholds the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees to return home. This right is enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948. No agreement, negotiations or parties which purport to trade away the right of return or any other inalienable rights can have any legal basis and cannot bind or compel the Palestinian people to accept them. The right of return is as much an integral part of the Palestinians’ right of self-determination as it is of individual and collective human rights.Meaning that even if the PA agrees to forgo this "right" in any peace plan, AfP and similar groups will not accept that peace proposal and will continue to agitate to destroy Israel demographically. (I do not need to mention that UNGR 194 does not give this right, it certainly does not apply to descendants and it was roundly rejected by all Arab states.)
Australians for Palestine adopts the position that Israel has the right to exist as does Palestine based on the 1967 borders according to UN Resolutions 242, 338 and 194. The right of Israel to exist is not exclusive to, or more valid than, the right of Palestinians to exist. How they shall exist is the issue still to be resolved.So Israel's existence is still up for grabs. Maybe it will end up being ensconced in a cafe in Tel Aviv.
Australians for Palestine recognises the right of Palestinians to legitimately resist Israel’s oppressive occupation within the territories occupied in 1967. ...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states quite clearly: “It is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected under the rule of law.” By failing to protect Palestinian human rights, the international community has driven the Palestinians to resist their occupiers and oppressors.So Arab terrorism is the fault of the West!
But...
Australians for Palestine adopts the position that terrorism violates the right to life, and therefore, is contrary to the fundamental principles of humanity embodied in international humanitarian law. This applies equally to the oppressor and the oppressed.
How to resolve these two paragraphs? Clearly the first one justifies terror, but the second pretends to condemn it. Chances are that they simply define "terror" as something only Israel does. Problem solved!
Finally,
Australians for Palestine adopts the position that pressure must be put on Israel to end its occupation and apartheid policies against the Palestinians through boycotts, divestment and sanctions. The failure of diplomacy and dialogue, and an international community led by the United States unable and/or unwilling to confront Israel and demand that it respect international law and United Nations resolutions condemning its policies, leaves this as the only non-violent option to bring about change. Therefore, Australians for Palestine will appeal to our government to uphold international law and apply sanctions on Israel; appeal to institutions such as churches and universities to divest from corporations that do business with Israel; and, appeal to the general public to use their own power to boycott products and services that benefit Israel.Even though these sanctions hurt Palestinian Arabs, and if Palestinian Arabs would divest from Israel their economy would crash and burn.
Now, note what these principles do not say.
Not a single word of responsibility for Arab countries to treat their Palestinian "guests" as equal citizens of their countries. Not a word about the systemic discrimination that Palestinian Arabs suffer in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere. Not a thing about the conditions in the camps that hundreds of thousands still live in, nor a call to dismantle them. Nothing about inter-Palestinian Arab squabbles and unifying the cause.
All of its concrete demands are against Israel. It advocates "resistance" against Israel, it advocates boycotts and sanctions against Israel and advocates destroying Israel demographically.
So why exactly is it considered "pro-Palestinian"?
