Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Sheikh Salah: Netanyahu building Third Temple

The last time we saw Sheikh Raed Salah, he was claiming that Israel is building a subway to the Temple Mount.

He also constantly tells anyone willing to listen that the Jews are building tunnels under the Temple Mount, building synagogues on top of it, and doing other dastardly deeds to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock. He'll make anything up as long as (a) he gets headlines, and (b) gullible Muslims will believe him.

Now,he is saying that Binyomin Netanyahu is ready to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount.

Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement's northern branch, spoke Wednesday afternoon in front of Muslim students at Haifa University and warned them that Benjamin Netanyahu was intending on completing his plan to gain control of the Temple Mount, which he said the prime minister had tried to do during his first tenure.

The Islamic leader, who was invited to speak by the IQRAA students' organization affiliated with his movement, briefed the students on the history of his movement and on the criminal proceedings taken against him and his people several years ago.

He noted that he had rejected the Shin Bet's offers to agree to concessions in Jerusalem. "We love life, our families, our homes and our children, but if they suggest that we give up our principles and holy sites, we would rather die and we will welcome death."

Salah claimed that the government continued constantly to dig tunnels under the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque, and that Netanyahu was planning to complete during his current term what he did not complete during his first one – "to dig additional tunnels under al-Aqsa and rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount."

The Muslim students responded by chanting, "Allahu Akbar" (God is great).

That's funny - if I heard that Netanyahu was building the Third Temple on the Temple Mount, I'd also say "God is great."

(h/t EBoZ)

PA legal system only exists for "collaborators"

Since the intifada, I have seen very few articles in the Palestinian Arab press about trials given for regular crimes - theft, murder, extortion, drug-dealing. Arrests, yes; trials, no.

With the exception of trials for "collaborators" with Israel.

This AP article is disturbing on many levels, but in addition it shows that apparently entire courtrooms are constructed just to sentence so-called "collaborators". It also shows the depths of hatred that Palestinian Arabs have towards Israel - to the point that they prefer their wives remain prostitutes rather than speak to Israelis:

A 22-year-old Palestinian woman, who says she became an informer for Israel to earn money that would get her out of prostitution, is going to prison for life. Others convicted of collaboration with Israel by West Bank courts sit on death row.

In the most recent case Monday, a military tribunal in a security compound in the West Bank town of Jenin sentenced 22-year-old Taghreed - her last name was not released - to a life term of hard labor.

The dark-skinned, portly woman, wearing a lace headscarf and blue jeans, remained calm while the sentence was announced. She refused to speak to reporters and none of her family attended the trial, indicating they had washed their hands of her.

The scene played out in a hastily assembled courtroom of plastic chairs, benches and a Palestinian flag.

Earlier, Taghreed had told the court that she turned informer after she left her husband, who had forced her to work as a prostitute and thus turned her into an outcast.

The information the woman sold was low-level - nothing that led to arrests by the Israelis, according to military prosecutor Raed Dalbah.

"If I was the judge, I would shoot her on the spot," said a guard outside the courtroom, spitting on the ground to emphasize his disgust at Taghreed.

In the past two years alone, West Bank tribunals have convicted seven people of collaboration, including Taghreed. She was the only one not sentenced to death, though the executions were not carried out.

During the two Palestinian uprisings, vigilante gunmen often killed suspected collaborators, at times with crowds looking on. After Israel withdrew from parts of the West Bank in the 1990s, it relocated hundreds of collaborators to Israel to protect them from retribution.

Palestinian human rights activists say they oppose the death penalty on principle, but most have not rushed to the defense of collaborators.

"We do not think there should be a death sentence," said Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and human rights advocate. "The punishment has to fit the crime. The crime, in the popular imagination, is the most unconscionable crime. It is a betrayal of everything that people hold sacred."

Does the PA not have a single real courtroom to try criminals?

Human Rights Watch bows to Saudi Arabia

NGO Monitor noticed an outrageous event that happened last month: Human Rights Watch went to Saudi Arabia, one of the worst offenders of human rights on the planet, to raise funds to continue their anti-Israel crusade.

From Arab News, May 26:

RIYADH: Human Rights Watch is gaining more recognition and support in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. During their recent visit to the Kingdom, senior members of the organization were given a welcoming dinner in Riyadh hosted by prominent businessman and intellectual Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan.
Other prominent members of Saudi society, human rights activists and dignitaries were invited to the dinner held to honor the guests.
In an introductory speech at the dinner, Al-Hejailan said the credo of human rights is rising in the Kingdom. He commended Human Rights Watch (HRW) for its work on Gaza and the Middle East as a whole.
HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on Israel violating human rights and international law during its war on Gaza earlier this year.
"Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.
Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions.

But wait - HRW pretended to be "even-handed" to the members of the Magic Kingdom:

Keeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia. The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.
"Saudi Arabia's current labor law excludes domestic workers, denying them rights guaranteed to other workers, such as a weekly day of rest, limits to hours of work, and overtime pay," said HRW in a statement in March as the Shoura Council was debating the issue.

This is the worst criticism that HRW can muster against Saudi Arabia? Domestic worker rights?

No mention of systematic discrimination against women, including the ban on driving? No mention about the bigotry against non-Muslims in the Kingdom, such as confiscating Bibles at the airport? No mention of the religious police who terrorize people day and night?

Well, of course not. HRW wasn't in Saudi Arabia to promote human rights in the Gulf. They were there to raise money, and it would not make sense to insult their potential benefactors.

Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW's International Board of Directors and the MENA Division's Advisory Committee, called for the support of the organization.
"Supporters can spot and fully discuss human rights cases or stories with friends or family members before passing stories or cases to HRW," Elmasry said.
The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW's budget for the region.
"Our work involved a lot of travel and expenses for researchers. We are so modest and conservative in running a tight budget of less than $2 million to cover costs and expenses for over 20 researchers working on the Middle East and North Africa," he said.
"Half of this amount comes from individual donors. We call businessmen in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world to support HRW by sending donations," said Elmasry, who is also a managing director at Morgan Stanley in London.

As NGO Monitor points out, HRW spends far more time criticizing Israel than repressive Arab regimes (with the interesting exception of Saudi Arabia, which gets more attention but much weaker criticism.)

Apparently, HRW now is using its biased Gaza reports and videos as fundraisers specifically aimed at Arabs. If the gambit works, they will have incentive to expand their criticism of Israel to get more money next year.

Does anyone see an ethical issue there?

Jimmy the Dhimmi frolicking with Hamas

From Palestine Today:

Do you think that there is a single Jew that Jimmy Carter loves as much as he loves Hamas terrorist leaders?

An "Arab News" lie

From the Arab News:

Hamas accepts Israel with 1967 borders

Ismail Haniyeh, the deposed prime minister of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, yesterday said his movement accepts a Palestinian state alongside Israel with its 1967 borders with full sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital.
“We welcome any push for achieving this dream if there is a real plan for resolving the Palestinian issue,” Haniyeh said in a news conference with visiting former US President Jimmy Carter here.

Really? Haniyeh accepted Israel?

Let's see how Ma'an reported it:

De facto Palestinian Prime Minister Isma’il Haniyeh said on Tuesday he would support any real proposal to establish an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

Haniyeh’s comments came during a joint press conference in Gaza City with former US president Jimmy Carter. “I will exert pressures towards realizing this dream,” said Haniyeh.

He doesn't say he accepts Israel, just that he has no problem with a Palestinian Arab state in the territories.

We've seen this charade before, where Hamas supposedly is compromising by saying that they wouldn't stand in the way of a Palestinian Arab state but saying nothing about accepting Israel - fully knowing that wishful-thinking idiots will fill in the blanks for him.

Palestinian Arabs, however, know quite well that Haniyeh would never accept Israel. Palestine Today in Arabic reports it this way:

The President of the Government of Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza Strip on Tuesday said that he supports a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in 1967, without mentioning that he recognizes Israel's right to exist, something Hamas rejects.

No doubt some Western news outlets will be trumpeting Haniyeh's statement as if he said he accepts Israel's existence, and nothing could be further from the truth.

The story of Omar Silawi - journalist and Hamas terrorist

Over the past few days PTWatch managed to dig up a bunch of new terrorists that the PCHR considered "civilian" victims during the Gaza operation. (We have now identified 297 "civilian" terrorists.) Here's the story of one of them.

PCHR describes victim #458 as "‘Umar Abdul Hafez Mousa al-Silawi, Male, 35, Journalist in al-
Aqsa Satallite channel, civilian."

From Mada, a Palestinian Arab journalist advocacy group:

(Jan.3) - Aqsa TV cameraman Omar Abdel-Hafiz Silawi (28 years) was killed in Beit Lahiya city (GS) after Israeli forces shelled Dr. Ibrahim Makadmeh mosque. His colleague Ibrahim Muslim said that they were covering the Israeli bombing in that area throughout the day, in particular, Kamal Adwan field hospital and the nearby areas. Silawi was filming and transferred videos to the place where the TV was broadcasting, then he transferred his wife to the hospital to give birth, then returned to take his camera and went to the mosque, which is 100m away from the hospital, and when it was bombed, he was seriously injured. “When I saw him on a stretcher sometimes I was filming him and sometimes helping they race him to the hospital,” said his colleague. “I was crying. They tried to treat him but without results. Our comfort is that his wife gave birth safely to a son.”

A very sad story indeed. But only part of the story.

Here is how Hamas' Al Qassam website describes Omar al-Silawi:

The al-Qassam fighter/martyr Omar Sailawi was born in the Saudi Arabia on the twenty-ninth of the month of September 1981. Although he was born away from his homeland "Palestine", but he was carrying in his heart and love her passion. [He moved to Gaza later - EoZ]

Omar Sailawi joined the ranks of the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas - since his return to the homeland, after his commitment in a mosque in al-Bashir, has begun to receive at the hands of advocates of the movement many religious lessons and courses to become one of the sons of the Muslim Brotherhood Muslims.

The martyr Omar - may God have mercy on him - joined the ranks of the Mujahidin of al-Qassam Brigades in 2004, after selflessly giving in to the demand and urgency to the leadership of Hamas for the organization in the ranks of the mujahideen, so pleased Almighty God to join him, for after being noticed for his the honesty and sincerity.

During the struggle within the ranks of the Mujahidin-Qassam Brigades, the martyr Omar - may God have mercy on him - participated in many Jihad tasks tasks, including:

* Participated in the processing of many of the explosives and mines, which were aimed at Israeli jeeps and tanks.

* Participated in the excavation and processing of tunnels and trenches.

* Participated in repelling the invasions of Zionism, which was aimed at the eastern region of the Jabaliya camp.

* Fired several mortar shells and Qassam rockets at the Zionist settlements and sites.

Yes, this "journalist" was an active member of the Hamas terrorist Al Qassam Brigades, a fact that no journalist advocacy group admits and that PCHR cannot seem to mention - although Hamas happily claims him as an honored member and martyr.

Although it is clear that this is the same person as the "journalist" mentioned above - Hamas' bio also mentions his wife giving birth an hour after he was killed - Hamas does not mention that at all in his biography.

Today's PalArab news 6-16-09

PCHR looks at yesterday's story of a Hamas member who died in PA custody, and notes that the dead man did indeed have signs of torture on his body, so he is being added to the death count.

PCHR also reports that Hamas police fired on a PFLP demonstration in Gaza City on Saturday, injuring three civlians.

Here's Ma'an's English version of the report of an assassination attempt against Carter.

There are reports that the IDF has granted amnesty to 26 Al Aqsa Brigades members in the West Bank, now allowing them free movement.

Gazan group attempted to assassinate Carter?

Maariv is reporting that, according to Palestinian Arab sources, an al Qaeda-aligned Gaza group attempted to assassinate Jimmy Carter on his current visit to Gaza.

According to the report, Hamas police discovered two bombs on Carter's route near the Erez crossing. Maariv says they confirmed the story with members of Carter's delegation.

Hamas police denied the story.

Who counsels patience if your people are suffering?

Five Palestinian Arab groups rejected Binyomin Netanyahu's peace proposal, and one word of their rejection stands out as proof that Palestinian Arab leaders don't give a damn about their people:

Five Palestinian factions exiled in Damascus said yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech the night before was “tantamount to a declaration of war on Palestinians’ national rights.”

In a statement sent to reporters in Damascus, the groups said that Netanyahu’s speech “ignored the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state with full sovereignty, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they fled in 1948, and declared his government’s continued policy to expand settlements in the West Bank under the mask of ‘natural growth’.”

Netanyahu’s policy is “a sure-fire recipe for ... new threats to security, peace and stability,” the statement said. “It is tantamount to a declaration of war on Palestinians’ national rights.”

The groups said they would “patiently continue to struggle for their national rights against the Zionist Entity’s policy of aggression” until Palestinians were able to return to their homes and had an independent state “with Jerusalem as its capital.”

They said they would refuse to meet with “the Zionist enemy...”They further called on the “international community” to pressure Netanyahu to abide by international resolutions.

The five factions that signed the statement were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Palestinian People’s Party, the Palestinian National Liberation Movement and the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front.

If the plight of Palestinian Arabs is so dire, wouldn't you think they would try to compromise and find a solution? What kind of leader asks his people to be patient - for decades, no less - and remain in a stateless limbo rather than work towards any sort of independence?

On the other hand, if their real goal is the destruction of Israel, prolonging the suffering of their people is a quite understandable tactic.

What is amazing is that no Arab would dare to point out the obvious fact that Palestinian Arabs remain pawns to this day who are not allowed to freely criticize those who keep them in their misery, who keep them in camps, and who keep them stateless.

On the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism

Jeffrey Goldberg quotes a Soviet-era joke from one of his readers:

A prominent scientist is being summoned to his institute's party secretary.

"Comrade professor", says the secretary gravely, "the Party has started a new anti-Zionist campaign. Our institute was ordered to purge all residual Zionist influences among intellectuals and scientists. So, you're fired."

The professor is shocked. "But I am a loyal party member!"' he protests. "I have never been a Zionist!"

The party secretary knits his eyebrows very tight. "Comrade professor, do not try to deceive the party!" he says. "We checked. You have a Zionist grandmother."

Saudi soldier uses helicopter to go shopping

From the Arab News:

AL-BUKAIRIYAH: Talk about running grocery store errands with panache! According to a report in yesterday’s Arabic daily Shams, a number of locals in this town in Qassim province are upset over a Saudi Army pilot’s decision to fly a helicopter to the grocery store, landing the aircraft on an empty lot nearby. Eyewitnesses told the paper that this is the third time the pilot has gone to the grocery store by whirlybird. Others also said the man buzzes a local girl’s college. The Saudi Army had no comment on the incidents.

In any normal army, a single incident like that would be enough to severely punish the pilot.

The Saudis have bought some $100 billion worth of high-tech military technology in the past 15 years. If their army is that lazy as to allow soldiers to use expensive helicopters as personal transport, how safe are their other weapons from just being stolen, or used in a coup?

Netanyahu, 2002

Yisrael Medad finds a speech by Binyomin Netanyahu to the Likud Central Committee in 2002 that is a bit at variance with his speech last night.

And, objectively speaking, his 2002 speech seems to be truer.

Excerpts of the differences:

We are promising Palestinian terror the greatest prize of all – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Today most of the Israeli public realizes that a Palestinian state under Arafat would be a bastion of terror directed at the destruction of the State of Israel.

But what about a Palestinian state without Arafat, under different leadership, after the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Brigaes have seemingly undergone reforms and become transparent, more responsible, under a different command?

What will happen then? Okay – let’s talk about this latest illusion.

The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.

Already today, under Arafat’s limited regime, the Palestinian are in wholesale violation of the restrictions they committed to in the Oslo agreements. ...

And when we enter Area A to fight against terror, as is our right according to the agreements, the entire world is scandalized (Look what happened in Jenin!). Now imagine what would happen if there were a state there, that we agreed to, a state whose borders the entire world recognized.

If we agreed to such a state, we would be shackling the Israeli army in iron chains of our own making, thus creating a danger to our very existence.

In any future agreement, if and when we get that far, I see self-rule in which the Palestinians will have the freedom to rule themselves. But to establish a state, with everything that that concept entails, with all the powers I have enumerated, which would endanger Israel’s existence – that no.

Not under Arafat or under any other leadership. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The Palestinians can have full rights – with the exception of one: the right to destroy the State of Israel!

Self-rule – yes! A state – no!

We are told that a Palestinian state is the vision of the future. Okay, our nation also has a vision for the future: “And the wolf will lie down with the lamb” and when that vision is realized in the Middle East, we will be willing to discuss the subject once again.

...
Dear friends, let me say this once again loud and clear: There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan.

If we leave here tonight without making a decision on this matter, if we waffle or waver, not only will we not stop the rushing train of the Palestinian state, we will be stoking its fires and increasing its speed.

Because such an outcome would have only one interpretation: that the Likud has backed off from its own positions and given in to the dictate of the establishment a Palestinian state.

That must not happen.

From here, we must send out a message loud and clear to the entire world.

We must vote as one in favor of the proposal opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

We must not be frightened if the international community does not see eye to eye with us on these matters. Did the international community foresee the danger of the Holocaust? And when it finally opened its eyes, did it do anything to stop it? Did it as much as lift a finger?

Did it see the danger posed to our survival from the atomic reactor in Iraq? And when it did, did it not condemn us when Menachem Begin’s Likud government bombed that destructive facility from the air?

On matters vital to our survival, we have always taken resolute steps, and we have always spoken clearly, even when many others in the world did not agree with us.

Because, ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Arab (repost)

The biggest problem that the Arab world and others seem to have with Netanyahu's speech yesterday was his insistence on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state.

One reaction came from Jimmy Carter, who called this a "hurdle" to peace.

So it is time to repost an article from 2007 where we ask why calling a state Jewish is such a problem, but calling it Arab or Muslim is not.

If you define "Jewish" in purely religious terms, that would mean that any state that defines itself as "Islamic" is, by definition, equally guilty of this discrimination. If you define "Jewish" in ethnic or national terms, then any state that defines itself as "Arab" would be equally guilty of the racism that Israel is being accused of.

Time to check out the official hypocrisy of Israel's critics, and note the deafening silence towards this supposed Arab and Islamic racism:

Jordan's constitution:

Article 1
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy.
Article 2
Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.

Egypt's constitution:

Art.1*: The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.
Art.2*: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Libya's constitution:

Article 1 [Principles]
Libya is an Arab, democratic, and free republic in which sovereignty is vested in the people. The Libyan people are part of the Arab nation. Their goal is total Arab unity. The Libyan territory is a part of Africa. The name of the country is the Libyan Arab Republic.

Article 2 [State Religion, Language]
Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official Language. The state protects religious freedom in accordance with established customs.

Morocco's constitution:

Preamble
The Kingdom of Morocco, a Muslim Sovereign State whose official language is Arabic, constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb.
Article 6 [State Religion]
Islam is the religion of the State which guarantees to all freedom of worship.

Yemen's constitution:

Article (1) The Republic of Yemen is an Arab, Islamic and independent sovereign state whose integrity is inviolable, and no part of which may be ceded. The people of Yemen are part of the Arab and Islamic nation.

Article (2) Islam is the religion of the state, and Arabic is its official language.

Article (3) Islamic Shari'ah is the source of all legislation.

Syria's constitution:

Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic]

(1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics.
(2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland.
(3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity.

Article 3 [Islam]

(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.

Saudi Arabia's constitution:

Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Kuwait's constitution:

Article 1

Kuwait is an independent sovereign Arab State. Neither its sovereignty nor any part of its territory may be relinquished.

The people of Kuwait is a part of the Arab Nation.

Article 2

The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation.

Algeria's constitution:

Article 1 [Democracy, Republic]
Algeria is a People's Democratic Republic. It is one and indivisible.

Article 2 [State Religion]
Islam is the religion of the State.

Bahrain's constitution:

Article 1 [Sovereignty, Constitutional Monarchy]
a. The Kingdom of Bahrain is a fully sovereign, independent Islamic Arab State whose population is part of the Arab nation and whose territory is part of the great Arab homeland. Its sovereignty may not be assigned or any of its territory abandoned.
Article 2 [State Religion, Shari'a, Official Language]
The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari'a is a principal source for legislation. The official language is Arabic.

Oman's constitution:

Article 1 [Sovereignty]
The Sultanate of Oman is an independent, Arab, Islamic, fully sovereign state with Muscat as its capital.

Article 2 [Religion]
The religion of the State is Islam and the Islamic Shariah is the basis of legislation.

Tunisia's constitution:

Article 1 [State]
Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is the Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic.

Article 2 [Arab Nation, Treaties]

(1) The Tunisian Republic constitutes part of the Great Arab Maghreb, towards whose unity it works within the framework of common interests.

Mauritania's constitution:

Preamble:...Conscious of the necessity of strengthening its ties with brother peoples, the Mauritanian people, a Muslim, African, and Arab people, proclaims that it will work for the achievement of the unity of the Greater Maghreb of the Arab Nation and of Africa and for the consolidation of peace in the world.

Title I General Provisions, Fundamental Principles

Article 1 [State Integrity, Equal Protection]

(1) Mauritania is an indivisible, democratic, and social Islamic Republic.

Iran's constitution:

Article 1 [Form of Government]
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Koranic justice,...
Article 2 [Foundational Principles]
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1) the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2) Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3) the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4) the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5) continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; 6) the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to: a) continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Koran and the Sunnah, upon all of whom be peace;
b) sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
c) negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

"Palestine"'s constitution:

ARTICLE 1

Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve.

ARTICLE 4

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.

So why, exactly, is a Jewish state (whose record of equal rights far surpasses those of any of the Arab nations) morally worse than the large number of Arab and Islamic states?

Today's PalArab news roundup 6-15-09

Palestinian Arab negotiator Saeb Erekat continued his rejectionism by criticizing Binyomin Netanyahu's peace speech, saying it didn't address "outstanding historical grievances of 1948." Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know - Palestinian Arabs aren't interested in peace, but in grudges. (See more here.)

Hamas, meanwhile, accused Netanyahu of "racism" by demanding that Israel be known as a Jewish state. No word on the "racism" of the many Arab states that officially declare they are Muslim in their constitutions - including "Palestine."

A Hamas detainee died in PA custody. Hamas accused the PA of torturing him to death; the PA is claiming that he jumped out of a window and died. It is entirely possible that both are correct - that he jumped out of the window to escape torture.

The PA found explosives in the home of a Hamas member in Hebron.

A Palestinian Arab woman was given a 20-year prison sentence for "treason" for "collaborating" with Israel. Trials for "collaboration" seem to be more common that those for murder, rape or theft, based on reports in Palestinian Arab media.

A man was killed in a drive-by shooting in Gaza. The 2009 PalArab self-death count is now at 104 (I am not yet counting the prisoner who died.)

Let's hear Abbas' peace speech

First we heard what Barack Obama had to say about peace in the Middle East. Then we heard Binyomin Netanyahu's vision of peace.

But we have no idea what the Palestinian Arab vision of peace is.

We certainly know that it is utterly incompatible with Israel's:

A top Palestinian official dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy speech as “a zero” on Sunday.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee, said the speech was empty of any content and pointless.

He explained that the speech would impede any progress toward a balanced peace settlement. He said Netanyahu is "a swindler, a fraud, and a liar who makes up tricks [about] achievement of this peace."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he would not resume negotiations with Israel until all construction in the settlements is stopped.

Meanwhile, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat said those who know the Israeli mentality should not be surprised to hear such a speech. He called on the Arab world to take the right stance toward the speech by freezing the Arab Peace Initiative.

All we hear is rejectionism.

It is obvious that the Americans and Israelis should be giving deep thought about peace, its parameters, its limitations and its potential.

So wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the Palestinian Arabs to describe their own, detailed vision of what a peace agreement would look like? Why wouldn't Abbas give a specific plan of how he envisions a peace agreement to work?

The reason is as simple as it is unpalatable to well-meaning Westerners. Palestinian Arab leaders have never wanted real peace with Israel. Their statements have made it abundantly clear that they regard any peace agreement as a temporary step in their quest to claim the entire area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

It is time to call their bluff. If they are going to criticize Netanyahu's plan, let them come up with their own plan that they consider realistic. Let us hear Abbas make a public policy statement at a university in the West Bank. If he refuses, perhaps the West will start to realize that he is not serious about peace. If his plan includes flooding Israel with millions of Arabs, if it includes the banning of Jews from visiting holy sites the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron and Bethlehem and Shechem, if it demands Israel's removing 100% of settlements, if it includes giving PalArabs the rights to fire missiles at Israeli civilian airliners - then the Western world might start to wake up to the fact that a peace process is stillborn without a peace partner who is willing to make compromises.

Abbas has already made clear that he feels no pressure to make any concessions as long as Obama is in office. He is happy to wait as long as it takes. Which means the last thing he wants to do is to make a public statement that could paint himself in a corner.

President Obama can go a long way towards the cause of real peace by demanding that Abbas put forth his plan, not in soundbites but in real detail, a plan that culminates in full relations between Israel and a Palestinian Arab state.

Because his plan would invariably show that he is not the "moderate" he is made out to be.