Answering John Kerry


Intro to Glick’s ‘Answering John Kerry’

Edited by John R. Houk

12/13/15

Caroline Glick posted an essay about John Kerry’s speech at the Brooking Institute’s Saban Forum. This is the same forum that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu video streamed a speech to the Saban Forum from Jerusalem. To comprehend just how idiotic Secretary of State John Kerry is (and by extension President Barack Hussein Obama), let me share some excerpts from Netanyahu’s speech that addresses Islamic terrorism internationally and the terrorism of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians who refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel:

I want to thank my friend Haim for giving me the opportunity to address you. This comes at a time when the United States has experienced a terrible and savage attack in San Bernardino, and I wish to offer the condolences of the people of Israel to the families, the aggrieved families, and of course send our wishes for a speedy recovery to the wounded. [Blog Editor: a sentiment rarely shared from Obama and Kerry to Israeli-Jewish victims of Palestinian Islamic terrorism.]

And these values are what makes the bond between Israel and the United States, the American people and the people of Israel, so strong. It’s that identity of values, those very values that are under such fierce attack today. …

Insofar as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned, I think there is another misunderstanding. People have long said that the core of this conflict is the acquisition of territories by Israel in the 1967 War. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed in any peace process, as is the question of settlements, but it’s not the core of the conflict. In Gaza, nothing changed. In fact, instead of getting peace, we gave territory and got 15,000 rockets on our heads. We took out all the settlements; we disinterred people from their graves; and did we get peace? No. We got the worst terror possible.

… Why has this conflict not been resolved for a hundred years? Why has it not been resolved after successive Israeli prime ministers, six in fact after the Oslo Agreement, have offered to make peace, have offered the Palestinians the possibility of building a state next to Israel – it’s because the Palestinians have not yet been willing to cross that conceptual bridge, that emotional bridge, of giving up the dream not of a state next to Israel, but a state instead of Israel.

And that’s why they persistently refuse – not only Hamas in Gaza, but the PA – they consistently refuse to accept that in a final peace settlement, they will recognize the Jewish state, they will recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people. They ask that we recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, but refuse to accord that same right to us. I have said and I continue to say it, that ultimately the only workable solution is not a unitary state, but a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That’s the solution. But the Palestinians have to recognize the Jewish state and they persistently refuse to do so. They refuse to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. That was and remains the core of the conflict. Not this or that gesture or the absence of this or that gesture, but the inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to make the leap.

You got a hint of that the other day when Abu Mazen spoke about the “occupation of Palestinian lands for the last 67 years”. Did you hear that? Occupation of Palestinian lands? For the last 67 years? Sixty-seven years ago was 1948. That’s when the State of Israel was established. Does Abu Mazen mean that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory? Of Haifa? Or Beer Sheba? He refuses to fess up to his people and say it’s over, from their point of view what they say are the borders they wish, the final borders they wish. They refuse to recognize that they will have no more claim on the territory of the Jewish state, that they will not try in any way to flood it with the descendants of refugees. After all, we in Israel took in an equal and even larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. You should READ the ENTIRE Speech (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Remarks to the Saban Forum; By PM Benjamin Netanyahu; Release by Israel GPO posted at SlantRight 2.0; posted 12/7/15)

Now as you read Glick’s essay you will notice that Secretary Kerry acts like he is completely deaf and blind about the intentions of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians to not only establish a state out of some territory of Jewish heritage but also the complete destruction of Israel to be replaced by an Arab State. In case you haven’t been paying attention to what ISIS is doing to the Christians that have lived in Syria and Iraq that means a brutal genocide against the Jews of Israel.

JRH 12/13/15

Please Support NCCR

********************

Answering John Kerry

By Caroline Glick

December 11th, 2015

CarolineGlick.com

On Saturday, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech before the Brookings Institute’s Saban Forum. Kerry focused on the Palestinian conflict with Israel and sought to draw a distinction between the two-state policy model, which he supports, and the one-state policy model, which he rejects.

To justify his rejection of a policy based on Israeli sovereignty over areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines, Kerry raised a series of questions about what a one-state policy would look like.

I answered all of his questions, as well as many others, in great detail in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. I will do so again here, albeit with the requisite brevity.

But before discussing the specific questions Kerry raised with regard to the one-state model, it is important to discuss the nature of the policies Kerry described in his speech.

Kerry argued Israel should deny civil and property rights to Jews beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and ignore the building and planning laws of both Israel and the military government in Judea and Samaria in order to allow unrestricted Arab construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Such steps, he argued, will advance the cause of peace because they will pave the way for an Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of these areas. Such a withdrawal in turn will bring about the desired two-state solution.

Since the two-state solution is supported by the whole world, Kerry argued that once Israel withdraws from the areas, it will gain the support of the world, peace with its Arab neighbors as well as the Palestinians, and become more prosperous and happy than it is today. It will also secure its democracy.

On the other hand, Kerry argued, if Israel respects the civil and property rights of Jews and continues to enforce the law toward Arabs as well as Jews, and if it eventually applies its laws to any or all of Judea and Samaria, Israel will enter a state of perpetual war with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. Israel will cease to be a democracy. Israel will be impoverished.

Israel will be isolated internationally even more than it is today.

If Kerry’s options were real options, then Israel would have a clear and easy choice, just as he argues it has.

But unfortunately, they aren’t real options. They are fantasies.

Today Israel has three options. As Kerry advocates, it can withdraw from Judea and Samaria and partition Jerusalem. But if it does so, there is no reason to believe that the outcome will be a Palestinian state, let alone peace.

Rather, it is far more likely that an Israeli withdrawal will lead to the establishment of a second independent Palestinian enclave that the Palestinians and the international community will insist is still under occupation, just as the Palestinians and the international community insist that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation 10 years after Israel vacated the Gaza Strip entirely.

Without Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Israel will become a strategic basket case in an increasingly chaotic region. It will invite aggression from the Palestinians and from the east that it will be hard pressed to defend against.

Just as Israel is condemned for every action it has taken to defend against Palestinian aggression from Gaza, so it will be condemned for the actions it will be forced to take to defend itself from Palestinian aggression in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and beyond.

In other words, the so-called “two-state solution” is a recipe for war and expanded international isolation for the Jewish state.

The second option for Israel is to maintain the status quo. Today, Israel shares governing power in Judea and Samaria with the PLO. Sometimes the PLO cooperates with Israeli security forces, and sometimes it cooperates with terrorist groups.

The PLO rejects Israel’s right to exist. It uses every available platform to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and wage economic and political war against the Jewish state.

The advantage of the status quo is that under it, Israel has security control over Judea and Samaria. Consequently, it is able to prevent Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem from becoming strategically indistinguishable from Gaza, where Hamas is now openly collaborating with Islamic State forces in Sinai.

Israel’s third option is to apply its laws over all or parts of Judea and Samaria. The first benefit of this option is that it maintains Israel’s ability to defend itself against security threats emanating from the Palestinians and from the east.

Beyond that, under Israeli law, the civil rights of Palestinians and Jews in Judea and Samaria will be vastly improved. Israel’s liberal legal code is superior to both the military code governing the Jews and the Palestinian Authority’s law of the jackboot which governs the Palestinians.

Whereas the status quo invites and engenders politicization of Israel’s military commanders who serve as the governing authorities of the areas, the third option would end the politicization of the IDF. Generals would take a backseat to elected leaders and government ministries. Police would be responsible for law enforcement. Rather than deploy regular and reserve units to dispel rioters, police, who are better trained for such events, would be judiciously deployed in areas where they are most needed. The IDF’s operations would be limited to counterterrorism.

None of Israel’s actual three options will necessarily enhance its international standing. This is the case because, as we have seen, Israel’s international standing has little to do with anything Israel does.

But then again, by exhibiting strength, and forcefully asserting its rights, Israel may find itself winning the respect of some foreign governments that currently view it is weak and open to blackmail.

This brings us to Kerry’s questions about a one-state model.

Kerry asked, “How does Israel possibly maintain its character as a Jewish and democratic state when from the river to the sea there would not even be a Jewish majority?” The answer is easily. Israel will retain its strong Jewish majority, and its commitment to democracy, after it applies its laws to Judea and Samaria.

Kerry asked, “Would millions of Palestinians be given the basic rights of Israeli citizens including the right to vote, or would they be relegated to a permanent underclass?” The answer is yes, they would be given the basic rights of Israeli citizens, including the right to vote, and no, they would not be relegated to a permanent underclass.

Kerry asked, “Would the Israelis and Palestinians living in such close quarters have segregated roads and transportation systems with different laws applying in the Palestinian enclaves?” The answer is, no.

Kerry asked, “Would anyone really believe they were being treated equally?” The answer is that, as we have seen repeatedly, no matter what Israel does, and no matter what the Palestinians do, people like Kerry will always claim that Israel is mistreating the Palestinians.

Kerry asked, “What would the international response be to that, my friends, or to a decision by Israel to unilaterally annex large portions of the West Bank?” The answer, again, is that the international response to such a move would be about the same as the international response to the continuation of the status quo or to an Israel withdrawal. To wit, the response will be hostile to Israel.

Kerry asked, “How could Israel ever have true peace with its neighbors, as the Arab Peace Initiative promises and as every Arab leader I have met with in the last year reinforces to me as recently as in the last month that they are prepared to do?” The answer is that Israel can have true peace with the Arab world when the Arab world accepts the legitimacy and permanence of the Jewish state.

Kerry asked, “How will [Arab states make peace]… if there is no chance for a two-state solution?” The answer is that they will make peace when they decide they want peace and they rid their societies of Jew hatred.

Kerry asked, “How will the Arab street in today’s world let… [the two-state solution] go by?” The answer is that the Arab street doesn’t believe in the “two-state solution.” The Arab street wants the dissolution of Israel.

Finally, Kerry asked, “And wouldn’t Israel risk being in perpetual conflict with millions of Palestinian living in the middle of a state?” The answer is that Israel is at risk of perpetual conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole for as long as the Arabs hate Jews. The millions of Palestinians living within Israel’s borders constitute a far smaller strategic danger to Israel than the millions of Jew-hating Arabs, who have terrorist armies, perched on its international borders.

At the outset of his remarks, Kerry explained that as far as US Middle East policy is concerned, “Our goal, our strategy is to help ensure that the builders and the healers throughout the region have the chance that they need to accomplish their tasks.”

Sadly, this is neither a goal nor a strategy. It is the sort of platitude you’re likely to find inside a Chinese fortune cookie.

If Kerry is interested in an actual strategy, he can fork out 20 bucks and buy my book.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

____________________

All right reserved, Caroline Glick. 2015

About Caroline B. Glick

Netanyahu in a Rock and Hard Place Gamble?


John R. Houk

September 10, 2015

I have typically been a supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In part because Netanyahu has stood up to America’s Leftist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. That drove BHO and his Leftist minion Democrats nuts. I am still okay with that. I am on the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) email list. I finally took the opportunity to read an August 31 email from HIR which highlighted some disturbing news about Iran, Judea/Samaria, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and unfortunately Benjamin Netanyahu.

This email provides an understanding of a possible reason Netanyahu may face some hostility from the further Right Wing of his Conservative base. In summary the more Conservative faction is a bit upset their Prime Minister that Iran has a path to acquire nuclear WMD which will be used against Israel but still supports the idea (at least publically) for the existence of Palestinian State in which the PA leadership is receiving clandestine financial and military aid from Iran. The more Conservative Israel Right is seeing a big load of hypocrisy from Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is my humble opinion though that Netanyahu is dealing with the realities of a rock and a hard place.

The rock is Israeli Leftists promoting the concept of land for peace under the delusion it will bring peace to the Jewish State of Israel. The hard place is President Barack Hussein Obama trying to court Muslim favor a la idiotic Jimmy Carter that sold out the Shah-ruled Iran (See Also HERE) to the psycho-Shi’ite Ayatollah-rule. As if exchanging the despotism of the Shah (American Leftist, CIA-Mossad Impact, Neocon Perspective, U.S.-British Oil Interests, Pro-Shah Perspective and fsmitha.com Perspective) for the despotism of the Ayatollah’s (See Also HERE) would be better for America and global peace. The Carter concept was erroneous in the late 1970s and the Obama concept is just as ludicrous in 2015 and beyond.

Obama is willing to throw Israel under the bus either under the delusion of peace in our time (can you say Neville Chamberlain?). OR Obama is embarking on a more nefarious agenda of disrupting the current global power structure which includes weakening the USA, to usher in a more Left Wing globalist power structure paradigm. Either way Obama sells out both America and our closest ally in the Middle East – Israel.

I am still convinced Netanyahu is the best man for the job in Israel. He is simply being forced into a geopolitical game in which Netanyahu is waiting to see who the next U.S. President will be, with the hope the new President understands the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, if Netanyahu’s geopolitical gamesmanship fails between Obama and Israel’s Jewish Left then followed by Iran actually acquiring nuke WMD resulting in a Palestinian State carved out of Israel’s heritage with Iran as hegemonic master and the new Palestinian State the new client. The next domino would be the destruction of Israel and a second modern Holocaust so devastating that Hitler’s final solution look like a picnic.

JRH 8/10/15

Please Support NCCR

*******************

An important Israeli politician, Moshe Feiglin, has reposted on his Facebook Page an Arutz 7 article written by Rob Muchnick, his US director, asking the question:

Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

Email sent by Professor Francisco Gil-White

Sent from Historical and Investigative Research

Sent August 31, 2015 9:46 PM

The article makes reference to HIR’s short documentary film: PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship (on Vimeo, on YouTube), which tells the story documented in an earlier HIR piece. This is exciting, because it is the beginning of political awareness on this crucial issue.

Here is Moshe Feiglin’s post:

I wholeheartedly support this very important article from our US Director, Rob Muchnick.

Please read it and demand that Bibi answer the questions that Rob poses.

Dear Friends,

I wish to ask you a question.

Will the Israeli government — the government of the Jewish State — give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

That may seem impossible.

First, because our prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, daily warns that Iranian leaders wish to destroy us.

Second, because the media, although they discuss the connection between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, never mention the deeper ties that bind Iran and PLO/Fatah (better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’).

And what is not in the news goes to sleep in the mind.

But a few days ago, Iran’s official news agency brought this connection back into view by reporting that PLO/Fatah and Iran have signed an “all-out cooperation agreement.”

PLO/Fatah will cooperate fully with Iran!

As a recent documentary reminds me, such cooperation is nothing new. (1) (2)

In the Second Intifada, the Iranian ayatollahs were running PLO/Fatah’s deadliest terrorists, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and mobilized them to ensure that Mahmoud Abbas became Yasser Arafat’s replacement. At the same time, Iran also sent the Karin a freighter with 50 tons of weapons to the PLO/Fatah. Thankfully, this ship was intercepted by Israel.

But the relationship is older.

In 1979, when the Iranian Islamist regime came to power, the New York Times reported on its front page that PLO/Fatah had been architect of that revolution:

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s troops;

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were invited, before any others, to celebrate with Khomeini in Teheran; and then

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas helped created the Iranian security services and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

As they celebrated in Teheran, Arafat declared that PLO/Fatah and Iranian aims were identical: the violent destruction of the Jewish people and State.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas explained to Arab reporters how it would be done:

First, promise peace. Then, gain some territory. And last: annihilate Israel. Abbas called it the ‘Plan of Phases’; the media called it the ‘Peace Process.’

So far, all goes according to plan. But will they conclude it?

Will we let them?

Join me, as Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide, in demanding from our prime minister answers to these questions:

Why is PLO/Fatah still in Israel?

Will our government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

(1) http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran2.htm

(2) https://vimeo.com/130162877

Please go to Moshe Feiglin’s Facebook page and show your support by sharing, and by clicking “like” on his posting.

________________________

[Blog Editor: Below are the cross posts of Notes one and two. Instead of Vimeo I’ll be using the Youtube version]

PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship

By Francisco Gil-White

May 25, 2010

Revised and improved, 8 September 2010

Historical and Investigative Research

Vimeo video link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA (‘WEST BANK’) TO IRAN?

Youtube Link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA (‘WEST BANK’) TO IRAN?

Published by FACESHIRHOME

Published on Jun 19, 2015

PLO/Fatah, now better known as the “Palestinian Authority,” will govern a Palestinian State in the militarily strategic territories of Judea and Samaria (or “West Bank”) if the Middle East “peace process” concludes with a “Two-State Solution.” Given that Iranian leaders daily promise the destruction of Israel, most people assume that PLO/Fatah has nothing to do with Iran. It would be absurd, they implicitly reason, for Israeli leaders to give strategic territory to an Iranian proxy. And yet, it is a historical fact that PLO/Fatah helped install Ayatollah Khomeini in power and helped create the current Iranian Islamist regime. It has maintained a close relationship with this regime ever since. This short film documents that relationship.

Short Preface

The Obama administration, like any government, routinely makes public statements about its intentions, values, and policy imperatives. For example, the Obama administration claims publicly to be enemy of Iran[1] and friend of Israel. In fact, the US government claims that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests.”[2]

But what if PLO/Fatah, also known as the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ is a proxy of Iran?

The US government pushes very hard for Israel to give strategic territory to PLO/Fatah in exchange for a promise of ‘peace.’ So if PLO/Fatah is helping Iran destroy Israel, the US government’s behavior is quite interesting.

About the future PLO/Fatah state, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu states: “I think it’s important to make peace with the Palestinians. And I’m prepared to negotiate that peace right away. …They should have their own independent country.” Consistent with this, Netanyahu is rushing to give PLO/Fatah its independent state, and has even put Jerusalem on offer. But Netanyahu has also said: “We should be assured that this country [the future PLO/Fatah state] is not used as a staging ground for Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on us.” So if PLO/Fatah is a proxy of Iran, the Israeli government’s behavior is also quite interesting.[3]

One should then ask: What in the world are the US and Israeli governments doing?

This must be answered, because PLO/Fatah, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is indeed part of an Iranian offensive to destroy Israel.

We will show here that PLO/Fatah has always been and continues to be very closely allied with Iran.

PLO/Fatah’s role in Ayatollah Khomeini’s coup

The regime that still rules Iran was inaugurated by Ayatollah Khomeini (see pictures, top right), a ferocious Islamist terrorist who led the 1979 Iranian Revolution to depose the previous ruler, the Shah of Iran. With whom did the Ayatollah Khomeini want to celebrate, right away and before sharing the joy with anybody else?

With Yasser Arafat, then head of PLO/Fatah.

It was just two weeks after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and took power that the New York Times reported how Yasser Arafat had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran. Why so soon? Why so much deference? Because the Ayatollah Khomeini was grateful: “Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the [Iranian] revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”[4] Only four days later Arafat was already in Teheran, celebrating the Iranian theocratic Islamist revolution, and promising to help export it everywhere. Wrote the New York Times: “Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations.”[5]

Fact: PLO/Fatah played a key role in the Iranian revolution, arming and training Khomeini’s troops.

Naturally, PLO/Fatah expected the favor to be repaid, and the Iranians rushed to state that they would honor their debts. The Globe and Mail reported:

[Quote from Globe and Mail begins here]

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said yesterday that Iranian guerrillas would fight alongside Palestinian forces against Israel.

… Mr. Arafat, the first prominent visitor to Iran since the revolution, said the Palestinian and Iranian aims were identical. “We will continue our efforts until the time when we defeat imperialism and Zionism,” he said.

A close aide of Ayatollah Khomaini, Deputy Premier Ibrahim Yazdi, also attended the inauguration of the PLO office and referred to the identity of the two causes and the large number of Palestinian sacrifices in the PLO’s struggle against Israel.

… The son of Ayatollah Khomaini, Seyyed Ahmad Khomaini, a Moslem clergyman who also spoke at the inauguration of the new PLO office, pledged Iran would continue its revolutionary struggle until all Islamic countries had been set free.

The bearded, black-turbanned Seyyed Khomaini said: “We will continue our struggle until we free all Islamic countries and hoist the Palestinian flag together with ours.”[6]

[Quote from Globe and Mail ends here]

Soon after this Arafat bestrode the world stage as the indispensable best friend of Khomeini, negotiating the safety of the Americans held hostage in the US Embassy in Teheran at the request of …(drum roll)… the US government.[6a]

This makes it rather obvious that the PLO was very powerful in Iran.

In fact, the New York Times wrote in November of 1980 that “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,” including the Defense Minister Mustafa Chamran and the leader of the Revolutionary Guards Abu Sharif. “Like Yasir Arafat,” wrote the New York Times,“both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East – in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf” (emphasis added). The Times also explained that PLO/Fatah had played a role in the creation of the Revolutionary Guards (for it trained Abu Sharif) and in creating the new Iranian secret police: SAVAMA (because Sharif and Chamran “relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts” in setting it up). The Times added:

“The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat’s inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime — so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.”[6b] [(HIR) emphasis added]

The picture is clear.

1) PLO/Fatah played a key role in the creation of the Iranian Islamist terror state.

a) It armed and trained Khomeini’s troops for his revolution.

b) It helped create the all-important Revolutionary Guards.

c) It helped create the Iranian secret service SAVAMA.

2) The idea of spreading Iranian Islamist terror everywhere was closely associated with “the PLO’s struggle against Israel.”

a) Iran pledged itself to assist PLO/Fatah against Israel.

b) PLO/Fatah pledged itself to export the Iranian Islamist Revolution.

For years now PLO/Fatah has been represented not only as unlinked to Iran, but also as a secular organization, to be distinguished from the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘Islamist’ Iranian terror proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. Most people accept this, and that is a testament to how a media barrage can alter the perception of history. It is obvious, however, that if Yasser Arafat’s ideology was to spread the Iranian Revolution, then he was an Islamist. Historian Howard Sachar, writing in 1982, agreed with how the New York Times represented things back then: “from the outset… the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel.”[6c]

Not just any kind of jihad: Iranian jihad.

PLO/Fatah’s alignment during the Iran-Iraq war

To understand just how intimate the relationship between the Islamist Iranian government and PLO/Fatah, one must take into account that such a strong alliance with the Iranian Shiites angered almost every Arab government that was supporting PLO/Fatah. One cannot imagine that they were pleased to hear Arafat announce his goal of exporting the Iranian revolution to the Gulf States (see above), because this would mean deposing the governments in the Gulf States. And yet Yasser Arafat remained close to his friend Khomeini.

A month after the Iran-Iraq war broke out in late 1980, the Arab governments had sided with Iraq and the situation had become politically dangerous for Arafat. So much so that Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states cracked down on their Palestinian populations. “The reason,” reported the Globe and Mail, “is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.” And it observed: “Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments” (emphasis added).[7]

That was October 1980. In December, this was the situation:

[Quote from Washington Post begins here]

Dependent on fellow Arab governments for virtually everything — physical protection, diplomatic backing, arms, money — Arafat has had to watch helplessly as the Persian Gulf war split his benefactors into antagonistic blocs with the PLO caught uncomfortably in the middle.

More damaging was the way the PLO’s much advertised independence crumbled under the arm-twisting pressures of the two camps. When the showdown came before last month’s divided Arab summit meeting, Arafat and the PLO were forced by Syrian President Hafez Assad, leader of the pro-Iran axis, to join a boycott of a summit whose aim was to organize a long-term strategy for the Palestinians’ crusade against Israel.[8]

[Quote from Washington Post ends here]

I would call this remarkable. Even though the PLO was dependent on Arab states for everything, when these states got together to plan a long-term strategy for the PLO’s fight with Israel, the PLO sides with Iran. It was “uncomfortable,” sure, but it sided with Iran.

In March 1981 Arafat had a sympathetic meeting with Iraqi Shiites allied with Iran, as reported by Tehran’s news service.[9]

‘Estrangement’ leads to renewed love

But this could not last. As observed above, the PLO’s entire infrastructure was based in the Arab states. Soon the PLO was forced to take a more pro-Arab position. And then, as the Iran-Iraq war was ending with the cease-fire in 1988, the prelude to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was getting into high gear. This process quite suddenly represented the terrorist PLO/Fatah as a moderate organization that wanted to make peace. So to keep matters propagandistically consistent, Iran just had to accuse Arafat of ‘treason’ against the Palestinian cause, while Arafat just had to pronounce himself in public against Iranian terrorism.

Thus, for example, when a bomb exploded in Tel Aviv in 1996, the Egyptian news agency MENA reported that Arafat was blaming the Iranians: “Nabil Abu Rudaynah, adviser to Palestinian President Yasir Arafat, …accused foreign, non-Palestinian, elements in the region of being behind these terrorist incidents to wreck the peace process. He specifically accused Iran…”[10] Shortly before that, Arafat had claimed that two Palestinians working for Iran had tried to assassinate him.[11] This is how a story of ‘estrangement’ between Arafat (formerly Khomeini’s best friend) and the Iranian regime was built.

But was it true?

Just one year later, the Palestinian daily Al Quds reported that a top PLO/Fatah leader had come back from Iran with a renewed relationship. What’s an assassination attempt between friends? But in fact this made perfect propaganda sense, because the newly elected Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was supposed to be an Iranian Gorbachev pushing liberal reforms, and Arafat was ‘making peace’ with Israel. Under this guise, an open friendship could resume.[12]

In 2002 the Second Intifada, a series of hair-raising terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, was raging. This was Arafat’s — that is to say, PLO/Fatah’s— war. Not even the mainstream Western media, so often a cheerleader for Arafat, was denying that most of the violence was due to the activities of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah terrorist group. Here is the Times of London, in April 2002: “A new group directly linked to Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement through its Tanzim military wing, the [Al Aqsa Martyrs] brigades are behind the majority of recent shootings and suicide attacks against Israelis.”[14] And here is The Australian, in September of 2003:

 

[Quote from The Australian begins here]

 

Israeli officials said documents captured last year in a massive military raid on the West Bank after a series of suicide bombings inside Israel showed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried out many of the attacks, was an arm of Fatah, Arafat’s political organisation. They also said the documents proved the Palestinian Authority’s intelligence apparatus, also headed by Arafat, was involved in planning terror activity.

 

Israeli officials said the documents showed Arafat had personally authorised fund transfers for such activity. ‘Arafat views terrorism as a legitimate tool for obtaining the Palestinian national goal,’ said one official.[15]

 

[Quote from The Australian ends here]

 

In the Second Intifada, behind PLO/Fatah, was Iran. Here is the Christian Science Monitor, writing in January 2002 under the headline: “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”:

 

[Quote from the Christian Science Monitor begins here]

 

… [T]he once-frosty relationship between Iran and Arafat appears to have thawed since the outbreak of the [second] intifada in September 2000. Iran, which opposes Israel’s very existence, is a staunch backer of the intifada, opening its hospitals to wounded Palestinians, training fighters, and rallying support for the uprising.

 

In April last year, Tehran hosted a conference for 34 Arab and Islamic countries and organizations. All the hard-line Palestinian groups were there as well as Hizbullah. But also attending was a representative of the Palestinian Authority, Salim Al Zeenoun, who admitted that the Oslo Accords had turned out to be a “sandcastle of illusion.”

 

Two months later, Arafat sent a telegram to Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to congratulate him on his re-election.

 

“We look to all the people of the Islamic world, foremost among them the Muslim Iranian people and their faithful leadership, to support, aid, and assist [Palestine],” Arafat said. He also asked Iran to “work fast to end this bloody and savage war which the Israeli government has been waging for eight solid months.”

 

Israel says that the military alliance between Iran and Arafat and the scheme to smuggle a shipload of [Iranian] weapons to the Palestinian Authority [the famous Karine A incident] was born at around this time. [13]

 

[Quote from the Christian Science Monitor ends here]

 

So PLO/Fatah, once installed inside Israel thanks to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, began functioning as a terrorist proxy of Iran.

 

At the same time, however, the road was being prepared for Mahmoud Abbas to posture as the anti-terror ‘peacemaker.’ Notice what The Australian wrote in September 2003:

 

“Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned last month after Arafat refused to hand over control of the security forces Abbas said he needed to make Hamas and Islamic Jihad halt their suicide bombings.”[15]

 

So, yes, the terrorist activity is all being directed by Arafat, but when Abbas takes over there will be peace, became the media message. In fact, the mainstream Western media went quite out of its way to laud Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen) as a supposed arch moderate.

 

Only one problem with this. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — the most violent Palestinian terrorists, and the ones most involved in the Second Intifada that Iran was sponsoring — in fact preferred Abbas to their own Tanzim boss Barghouti as a replacement for Arafat when the latter died. An Associated Press wire dated December 2004 reports that:

 

“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects… Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti … should resign from Fatah,’ he told The Associated Press.”[16]

 

It is already clear that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was linked to Iran, because Iran was sponsoring the Second Intifada, which was being waged especially by the brigades. In fact, only two months earlier, with Arafat still alive, the Daily Telegraph had reported: “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has now come under Iran’s sway, especially in the West Bank.” Who were they directly working with? None other than Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy Fatah is supposedly so different from: “Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.” Arafat did not deny this, though he tried to give it a different spin: he claimed to be upset, and accused Iran of trying to “infiltrate Fatah.”[17]

 

The upshot is that nobody was denying that Iran was heavily involved with the PLO/Fatah terrorists, the same terrorists who pushed for Mahmoud Abbas becoming the new PLO/Fatah leader.

 

Oh wait. Somebody would deny the link between PLO/Fatah and Iran. Guess who? The Israeli government.

 

As Frontpage magazine explained in 2007:

 

“Iran’s direct connection to Hamas is openly discussed and widely acknowledged. Where Fatah is concerned, the issues are more complex; but the link has been established. In March, Brig. Gen. (res.) Shalom Harari, a Senior Research Scholar with the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, wrote an Issue Brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in which he noted: ‘There is a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces in the territories. Iran is involved in supporting both the Islamic factions and Fatah, as well. Today, at least 40 percent of Fatah’s different fighting groups are also paid by Hezbollah and Iran.’

 

Corroborating Harari’s analysis, Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, head of the IDF Southern Command, wrote an Issue Brief for the JCPA one month later in which he observed: ‘A few years ago, Fatah’s Al Aqsa Brigade in Judea and Samaria was bought out by Iran.’ Checks with various security and intelligence sources have provided additional confirmation of this information. Iranian funding of Fatah is not direct, but comes through the conduit of Hezbollah and goes in the main to Al Aqsa Brigades.

 

The government of Israel… maintains that Al Aqsa, although originally a spin-off from Fatah, is no longer part of Fatah and no longer answers to Abbas. This spin makes it possible to continue to promote Fatah as potentially moderate, in spite of Al Aqsa’s very radical connections. Experts refute this scenario, however. Said one security source who provided background information: ‘Abbas is formally the commander of Al Aqsa…he has little to do with them to ensure deniability…but privately supports Al Aqsa. US money to PA security agencies go to Al Aqsa people as well. Indeed, Abbas has ensured that most of the Al Aqsa people are on the payroll.’”[17a]

 

The Israeli government goes out of its way to pretend that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is not part of Al Fatah, thus supporting Abbas, who pretends that he has nothing to do with them in order “to ensure deniability” for Al Aqsa’s murders of Israeli civilians. The Israeli government is covering for those who murder Israeli citizens. We have already seen above how absurd the Israeli government’s position, for Abbas owes his position to Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: they were the ones lobbying for him—marching in the streets, in fact—and intimidating his competition.

 

 

So PLO/Fatah (or the ‘Palestinian Authority’) is allied with Iran to destroy the State of Israel.

 

But the US government wants PLO/Fatah to inherit strategic Israeli territory. And the Israeli government is cooperating. What are they doing?

 

What are the US and Israeli governments doing?

 

It is now probably a good idea to review HIR’s First Principles, in order to do some hard thinking about US geopolitics.

 

ARGUMENT A.

Premise 1. The way to do better geopolitics is to have a more accurate representation of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

 

Premise 2. The Government of the United States, the most important geopolitical player, has the strongest motivation to do better geopolitics.

 

Therefore: The Government of the United States works very hard to obtain a better understanding of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

 

Fact: CIA director George Tenet said in the year 1998 that the budget on that year had been a little under 27 billion. Recently, a US Intelligence official said in a press conference that the yearly budget was now 44 billion. But the truth is that nobody knows for sure, because the budget for US Intelligence is a state secret.

 

Hypothesis: The Government of the United States has very good information—definitely better than my own—on which to base its geopolitical decisions.

 

ARGUMENT B.

 

Premise 1. The Government of the United States, for many years running, has been the most powerful in the world.

 

Premise 2. Idiots don’t become the most powerful people in the world.

 

Therefore: The Government of the United States is not run by idiots.

 

Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States behaves in ways that seem idiotic to me, then a) there is something I don’t yet understand; or b) this government has different values than my own. Or both. (And I have yet to accept this, which is why I think the behavior is idiotic.)

 

ARGUMENT C.

 

Premise 1. The true preferences of someone are revealed in his/her expensive behaviors.

 

Premise 2. Saying “My intentions are X” is not expensive but cheap.

 

Therefore: Speech acts (e.g. public and official declarations) don’t necessarily convey information about the true intentions of a government.

 

Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States consistently, year after year, spends billions of dollars and achieves always similar results, and if these results contradict the government’s publicly declared intentions, the publicly declared intentions must be deliberate deceptions.

 

US Intelligence knows perfectly well everything that I have documented in this article. And it knew it long before I did. Hence, the US Government is applying very strong pressure on Israel to create a ‘Palestinian State’ run by PLO/Fatah on strategic Israeli territory knowing full well that PLO/Fatah is allied with Iran to destroy Israel.

 

Is this consistent with other expensive US Government behaviors? It is.

 

As we have documented on HIR, the entire history of US foreign policy toward Iran, despite the loud public condemnations, is one of consistent and dramatic assistance to Iran’s long-term goals.[19]

 

On the basis of this evidence we may conclude that when President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel states to a group of rabbis that “ ‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security — and long-range interests,’ ” the Obama administration is lying.[2] If the US government is lying, then we must consider the alternative hypothesis: that the US Government — not the American people, but the US Government — is an enemy of Israel.

 

Does this make sense?

 

It is certainly consistent with HIR’s detailed investigation of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and state since the 1930s, which shows conclusively that — contrary to popular belief — the US ruling elite has always worked hard to undermine Israeli security.[21]

 

Israeli leaders are cooperating with this process, because they have not yet expelled PLO/Fatah from Israel. On the contrary. Though they pretend to drag their feet, they are engaged in an on-again, off-again process with PLO/Fatah that (let’s face it) is designed to give it everything it wants, in exchange for… Well, for nothing, because PLO/Fatah has not laid down its arms and does not intend to.

The Israeli government is also much better informed than I am, and likewise knew everything I have reviewed here long before I did. After all, the documentation I use is publicly available, and one of the main targets of Israeli intelligence-gathering is, naturally, PLO/Fatah.

 

So what are Israeli leaders doing? It is an important question.

 

Any effort to begin answering this question must examine what certain important Jewish leaders did in the prelude to, and during, World War II. HIR has much documentation on this topic, but two articles in particular offer a good place to start.

 

First, to examine the behavior of (soon-to-be) Israeli leaders during the Holocaust, please read:

 

► “The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah (‘Holocaust’)”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE: An HIR series; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 February 2007; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders4.htm

 

Then, to examine the behavior of a string of Israeli prime ministers, consistent with the history documented above, please read:

 

►”Leaders Lied, Jews died: Why have Israeli leaders been lying to their fellow citizens about the PLO/Fatah?; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White (with the editorial assistance of Ted Belman)
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders_lied.htm

 

If History is indeed repeating itself, then the Jewish people is in great peril, for when the causes recur, so do the consequences. And if the Jewish people is in peril, then so are ordinary people all over the West, because 2500 years of Western history show conclusively that periods of Jewish persecution coincide with periods of savage oppression against non-Jews (a recent and dramatic example is the 20th c. Holocaust).
www.hirhome.com/colapso/colapso_eng.htm

 

Footnotes and Further Reading

 

[1] Last Friday it was reported that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for another round of United Nations sanctions against Iran.”  Here, the US government is projecting that Iran is the bad guys and that the US will work to undermine Iran.

 

SOURCE: “Obama the appeaser; The transnational dove has left a vacuum that Iran is filling”; The Washington Times, May 21, 2010 Friday, B, COMMENTARY; Pg. 3, 777 words, By Jeffrey T. Kuhner SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

[2] A week ago, President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel stated to a group of rabbis that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests. Watch what the administration does.’ ” Here, the US government is projecting that Israel is the good guys and will work to strengthen Israel.

 

SOURCE: “US ‘screwed up’ message on Israel, Emanuel tells rabbis. Officials deny administration changing view on Israeli nuclear policy”; The Jerusalem Post, May 16, 2010 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 1197 words, HERB KEINON, JTA contributed to this report.

 

[3] Interview With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; CNN; July 7, 2010 Wednesday; NEWS; International; 5805 words; Larry King
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/netanyahu_eng.htm#_ftn9

[4] “The PLO announced today that its chairman, Yasser Arafat, had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran soon. It also said that followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had seized the former Israeli diplomatic mission in Teheran, and the PLO had accepted an offer to turn it into a Palestinian embassy.

 

Wafa, the Palestinian press service, reported that the Ayatollah’s forces had contacted Mr. Arafat by telephone yesterday and proclaimed their solidarity and gave their thanks.

 

Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”

 

SOURCE: P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page)

 

[5] “An exultant Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, proclaimed here today that the Iranian revolution had ‘turned upside down’ the balance of forces in the Middle East.

 

‘Today Iran, tomorrow Palestine,’ he said.

 

Mr. Arafat received a pledge from Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranians would ‘turn to the issue of victory over Israel’ after Iran had consolidated its strength, the Teheran radio reported.

 

…Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations, saying:

 

‘It is enough that we are here, and no matter how much we have helped we cannot offer as much back as the Iranian people have offered us. It is enough for us to be among the Iranian people.

 

Asked whether the Palestinian movement felt ‘stronger’ since the Iranian uprising, he said:

 

‘Definitely. It has changed completely the whole strategy and policy in this area. It has been turned upside down.’ ”

 

SOURCE: Arafat, in Iran, Reports Khomeini Pledges Aid for Victory Over Israel; Visit a Sign of Iran’s Sharp Turn; ARAFAT, IN TEHERAN, PRAISES THE VICTORS; By JAMES M. MARKHAM Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 19, 1979. p. A1 (2 pages)

 

[6] “Four more generals executed; PLO, Iran will fight Israel, Arafat says”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 20, 1979. p. P.10

[6a] “Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah Khomeini: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran.htm

[6b] “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. One of the most intriguing delegates at the Fatah conference in Damascus at the end of May, for example, was Arbas-Agha Zahani whose nom de guerre is Abu Sharif. He was then the head of the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran Enghelab, a post he resigned in a power play in June that was designed to weaken the position of the relatively ”moderate” President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. (Abu Sharif was subsequently reappointed deputy chief of the Pasdaran Enghelab.) Abu Sharif rose to a position of influence thanks to the patronage of the present Iranian Defense Minister, Mustafa Chamran. Like Yasir Arafat, both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East – in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf.

 

Abu Sharif’s links with Arafat, Abu Jihad and other key figures in the P.L.O. leadership date back to the early 1970’s, when he attended a guerrilla training course at a Fatah camp in Lebanon. After the downfall of the Shah, Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts for help in setting up a new secret police to replace the Sha’s notorious Savak. A special P.L.O. unit, whose members had received intelligence training in the Soviet Union, was dispatched to Teheran to assist in rooting out ‘counterrevolutionaries.’ Abu Sharif repaid his personal debt to the P.L.O. by successfully lobbying — with the backing of, among others, one of the Ayatollah’s grandsons — for a big Iranian contribution to the Palestinian war chest and for the dispatch of more than 200 Iranian ‘volunteers’ to fight with the P.L.O. in southern Lebanon

The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat’s inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime — so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.” [(HIR) emphasis added]

 

SOURCE: “TERROR: A SOVIET EXPORT”; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 2, 1980. pg. A.42; by Robert Moss

 

NOTE: though the PLO supposedly rooted out “counterrevolutionaries” to help create the Ayatollah’s new secret service, exiled Iranians were pointing out that the new SAVAMA was almost identical in all its personnel to the old CIA-created SAVAK. This would make sense if the Islamist Iranians and PLO/Fatah all answered to the same (US) master. Otherwise it is very strange.

 

[6c] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (pp. 698)

[7] MANAMA BAHREIN — MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) – Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have tightened restrictions on an estimated 400,000 Palestinians since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, diplomatic sources say.

 

A ban on political gatherings by Palestinians has been imposed and strict visa requirements are being rigidly enforced. The reason is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.

 

Other sources said that Yasser Arafat, head of the Lebanon-based Palestine Liberation Organization, has reassured Persian Gulf governments that his guerrilla movement would never upset the stability of the oil- rich area and ordered his representatives in Gulf capitals to remain neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. “The PLO has been treading a delicate path of neutrality between Iraq and Iran and that has not been easy,” one Arab diplomat said. “Iraq, and all other Arab powers, insist that the PLO must put its political cards on the table and declare its unchangeable commitment to the Arab cause against that of the (non-Arab) Persians.” At the same time, Iranian leaders are reported to have asked the Palestinians to support Iran in return for their support of the guerrilla movement.

 

Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments.” [(HIR) emphasis added]

 

SOURCE: “Gulf states tighten hold on Palestinians”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 23, 1980. p. P.14

 

[8] “War, arab Feuding Leave Arafat, PLO in Disarray; Gulf War and Arab Feuding Leave Arafat and PLO in Disarray”; The Washington Post, December 14, 1980, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 1487 words, By Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Foreign Service

[9] “Arafat’s Meeting with Iraqi Da’wah Party Delegation”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 3, 1981, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8; , 395 words.

 

TEXT:

 

BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
March 3, 1981, Tuesday
Arafat’s Meeting with Iraqi Da’wah Party Delegation
SOURCE: Tehran in Arabic for abroad
 1430 gmt 1 Mar 81
Excerpt from abroad
SECTION: Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8;
LENGTH: 395 words

 

A delegation representing the Da’wah Islamic Party in Iraq met with Brother Yasir Arafat the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and member of the delegation commissioned to study the issue of the war that has been imposed on Iran by the Iraqi regime, at noon today.

 

The spokesman for the Iraqi Da’wah Islamic Party briefed Brother Arafat on the measures of suppression, oppression and banishment that have been carried out by the infidel Tikriti regime against the Iraqi Mujahidin. The spokesman, who supported his statement with pictures, statistics and documents, added that during the past year alone, Saddam’s regime had killed and executed 100,000 Iraqi strugglers. The spokesman added that the Iraqi regime’s suppressive measures have escalated to the extent that even women, children and old men are not spared. They, too, have been subjected to tyranny, injustice, imprisonment and execution.

 

The spokesman stressed that the stance of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not represent the stance of the Government and people of Iran alone, but also the claims of more than 60,000 exiled Iraqis and the claims of the help- less Iraqi people. Speaking to Brother Arafat, the Iraqi spokesman added: We ask you, as a true revolutionary, not to deal with us in terms of international political principles and international relations; we call upon you to help our voice of truth be heard through- out the world and to pressure Saddam’s bloody infidel regime to change its position on the oppressed Iraqi people and end the war he has imposed on both of the Muslim peoples in Iraq and Iran.

 

Then one of the Iraqi mujahidin spoke and said to Brother Arafat: O Brother Abu Ammar, I am a struggler and revolutionary just as you are, and my duty is to fight at your side against the Zionist regime and for the liberation of Palestine and not to be exiled by Saddam’s regime to Iran after a period of torture. Then the struggler showed the marks that remained on his body after being tortured by the Iraqi regime to Brother Arafat, and said that the torture carried out by Saddam’s gang against the Iraqi mujahidin was much more than that carried out by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian combatants. Seeing and hearing all this, Brother Arafat could not prevent his tears of sympathy for the Iraqi brothers from falling. . .

 

[10] “PALESTINIAN REACTION; Arafat’s adviser accuses Iran of sheltering terrorism”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 5, 1996, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; AFTERMATH OF TEL AVIV BOMBING; EE/D2553/ME, 326 words

[11] “ ‘SABOTAGE’ ATTEMPT; Two pro-Iran Palestinians reported arrested for plotting to kill Arafat”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, February 21, 1996, Wednesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS; EE/D2541/ME, 79 words

[12] “Bethlehem: Brig-Gen Abu Khalid al-Lahham, who recently returned from Iran, said that Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad Khatami is considered a close friend of Palestine and the Palestinian people, as well as a personal friend of President Yasir Arafat. Moreover, he called him the Iranian Napoleon and described him as Iran’s saviour.

 

In an exclusive interview, Lahham said… the new Iranian leadership will strive to refute its image of exporting revolution and interfering in the internal affairs of other people.

 

On the internal level, the new leadership will engage in building a free economy and will allow freedom of thought and faith and the formation of political parties.

 

Lahham, who arrived in Iran 10 days before the elections on an assignment by President Yasir Arafat, added that the new leadership will support the Palestinian people with all their leaders and inclinations, including the peace process, but it will fight to defend its role and presence as a major Middle Eastern state. The Palestinian people will be able to ask for Iran’s support”

 

SOURCE: “Arafat adviser visits Iran, brings message of support for Palestinians”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, June 12, 1997, Thursday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAEL; ME/D2943/MED, 428 words

 

[13] “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”; Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), January 18, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 08, 1353 words, Nicholas Blanford Special to The Christian Science Monitor

[14] “A bitter taste for vengeance”; Sunday Times (London), April 7, 2002, Sunday, Features, 2938 words, Marie Colvin in Ramallah

[15] “Arch-terrorist or hero of peace: Arafat’s enduring image”; The Australian, September 25, 2003 Thursday All-round Country Edition, WORLD-TYPE- FEATURE-BIOG- YASSER ARAFAT; Pg. 8, 1079 words, Abraham Rabinovich

[16] Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank

[17] “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has now come under Iran’s sway, especially in the West Bank.

 

Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.

 

The Shia group pioneered the use of suicide bombings in the 1980s, kidnapped westerners and successfully drove the Israeli army out of south Lebanon in 2000. Hizbollah is now a political party in Lebanon.

 

‘Hizbollah is a finger of Iran’s hand,’ the senior Israeli security source said. ‘In the past year we can see increasing Iranian influence in Palestinian attacks on Israel.

 

‘The same people sometimes receive money both from Arafat’s headquarters and from Hizbollah. If the attack succeeds in causing fatalities, they get a bonus from Hizbollah.’

 

Another security source said Hizbollah rewards Palestinian cells to the tune of $5,000 (pounds 2,900) for each Israeli killed.

 

Israel regards Teheran as its mortal enemy, and has every interest in presenting Iran as a dangerous state sponsor of international terrorism. But on the issue of penetrating Fatah, Israel is in unusual agreement with Palestinian leaders.

 

Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian ‘president’ who has been confined to his Ramallah headquarters for more than three years, said this week that Hizbollah was trying to infiltrate Fatah.

 

He said Iran was financing radical Islamist groups, and denounced Iran’s spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei.

 

He said: ‘Khamenei is working against us. He is giving money to all these fanatical groups. Khamenei is a troublemaker.’ ”

 

SOURCE: “Iran ‘in control of terrorism in Israel’; Hizbollah, described as a ‘finger of Teheran’s hand,’ is said to be paying $5,000 for every Israeli killed.” Anton La Guardia reports from Tel Aviv; THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), October 15, 2004, Friday, 803 words, by Anton La Guardia

 

[17a] “The Fatah–Iranian Connection”; Frontpage June 8, 2007; By Arlene Kushner.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28658

 

[18] The Israeli soldiers were under orders to protect civilians (apparently no matter the cost, because they defended themselves, at first, with non-weapons such as paint-ball guns). It was only after one of the wounded Israeli soldiers was thrown from the upper deck and the lethal weapons of the soldiers were taken from them by the attackers, that their fellow soldiers opened fire to protect them. The result was that some of the attackers died.

 

The images of the brutal attack against the Israeli soldiers—a blood curling lyinching (sic)—are available to the public.
http://www.vimeo.com/12555636

[19] “Will the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 February 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/attack_iran.htm

[20] “How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: An HIR Series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[21] “Is the US an ally of Israel?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

________________________

Netanyahu in a Rock and Hard Place Gamble?

John R. Houk

September 10, 2015

_______________________

Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

 

PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship

 

HIR About Page:

 

Francisco Gil-White has a Masters in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a PhD in biological and cultural anthropology from UCLA. His PhD thesis work was in rural Western Mongolia, where he did 14 months of fieldwork studying the mutual ethnic perceptions of neighboring Torguud Mongol and Kazakh nomadic herders. Until June 2006, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Today he teaches at ITAM, in Mexico City. His research is broadly concerned with the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for social learning and social perception and cognition. His main interests are the evolution of ethnic processes, with a special focus on racism, and particularly anti-Semitism; prestige processes; the evolution of language; the structure of narrative memory; the structure and interaction of media and political processes; the laws of history; Western geopolitics; and the political history of the West.

 

About the HIR Method

 

Support HIR

Vatican Demonstrates Antisemitism


PX*3033958


John R. Houk
© May 15, 2015
 
I am sure many of you politically savvy readers have already heard that the Vatican under Pope Francis’ leadership has recognized the Palestine Authority as a sovereign nation with full diplomatic relations.
 
I first found out about this from Breaking Christian News (BCN) which cross posted a partial article from Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News.
 
I understand the Roman Catholic Church is more about the authority of Tradition than the authority of the Holy Bible as the Word of God, but come on! Throwing the Land of the Jews under the bus to a group of people whose sole reason to exist is to destroy Israel and murder Jews is either an idiotic act or an insane act:
 
Future: A world without Israel
The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine. A Fatah member of Palestinian parliament, Najat Abu Bakr, told PA TV that the PA supports and adopts the “stages plan.” To the world, the PA claims that the Palestinians seek the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when in fact the goal is all of Israel: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders, but in our current political program we say we want a state on the 1967 borders.” [PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 25, 2008] (PA depicts a world without Israel; Palestine Media Watch)
 
And from for all intents and purposes an independent Hamas Islamic terrorist organization:
 
Vowing to destroy Israel, Hamas paraded some 2,000 of its armed fighters and truck-mounted rockets through Gaza on Sunday, marking its 27th anniversary with its biggest show of force since the end of the Gaza war this summer.
 
….
 
At the parade, a senior Hamas leader reaffirmed the Islamist movement’s founding charter’s pledge to destroy Israel.
 
“This illusion called Israel will be removed. It will be removed at the hands of the Qassam Brigades,” said Khalil al-Hayya, a top Hamas leader, referring to the movement’s armed wing.
 
 
Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 from Fatah forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Both groups signed a unity deal in April but are divided over how to administer the Gaza Strip. (Hamas holds Gaza military parade, vows Israel’s destruction; By Nidal Al-Mughrabi; Reuters; 12/14/14 11:47am EST)
 
Here are two CBN News articles dated 5/14/15 and 5/15/15 which shows a Vatican decision that is in my opinion a demonstration of ANTISEMITISM.
 
JRH 5/15/15

Please Support NCCR

*********************************
Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’
 
CBN News Internet Producer – Jerusalem
May 14, 2015
 
JERUSALEM, Israel — Israeli leaders expressed disappointment with the Vatican’s decision to officially recognize a Palestinian state.
 
“This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry responded. “Israel will study the agreement and will consider its steps accordingly.”
 
One former Israeli diplomat told CBN News, “There was no need for the Vatican to jump ahead.”
 
“Given their record in World War II, they should be more careful,” he said. “The Vatican should show more responsibility and not interfere with the future of the Jewish people.”
 
Does this move by the Vatican mean the Catholic Church is taking sides against Israel? Dr. Paul Bonicelli, a professor of government at Regent University, addressed that question and more with CBN’s Efrem Graham. Click play to watch.
 

http://cbn.com/tv/embedplayernews.aspx?bcid=4236001591001

 
A statement released by the Vatican Wednesday said the decision “deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.”
 
The treaty replaces the Palestine Liberation Organization as the address for its diplomatic interaction with the Palestinian Authority unity government, made up of Fatah in Ramallah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
 
“We have recognized the state of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the state of Palestine in our official yearbook,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said.
 
Pope Francis referred to Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the Palestinian state last year during his visit to Israel. The Pope will receive Abbas at the Vatican Saturday, a day before bestowing sainthood on two Arab nuns who lived during the Ottoman occupation.
 
Meanwhile, several American Jewish groups also expressed disappointment with the Pope’s decision. The American Jewish Committee called the move “counterproductive.”
 
“Formal Vatican recognition of Palestine, a state that, in reality, does not yet exist, is a regrettable move and is counterproductive to all who seek true peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” AJC Executive Director David Harris said.
 
“There is a reason why the U.S., the European Union and others have long agreed that statehood can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” he continued.
 
“Meanwhile, the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] is ruled by the Palestinian Authority, whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, just marked the tenth anniversary of what was meant to be a four-year term, and Gaza is governed by Hamas, a terror organization. What and where exactly is the ‘State of Palestine’ today?” Harris queried.
 
“We are fully cognizant of the Pope’s good will and desire to be a voice for peaceful coexistence, which is best served, we believe, by encouraging a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, rather than unilateral gestures outside the framework of the negotiating table,” Harris concluded.
 
+++
What Vatican’s Move May Mean for Jerusalem’s Future
 
CBN News Middle East Bureau Chief
May 15, 2015
 
JERUSALEM, Israel — Critics say the Vatican’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state could have profound consequences for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the future of Jerusalem.
 
In a new treaty, the Vatican switched its diplomatic recognition from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. Palestinian officials celebrated the decision.
 
“We are indeed extremely encouraged by the Vatican recognition of the state of Palestine. We also see this as a very positive development, not just politically but in moral terms, human terms, in legal terms, and it prepares for a whole new era in which Palestine will be seen by the whole world as a state,” senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi said.
 
Israeli sources told CBN News they believe the Vatican’s decision will not lead the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table or promote the peace process. They plan to study the agreement and decide what possible steps to take.
 
Other groups like the Zionist Organization of America criticized the decision.
 
“Because what they are instructing the Palestinians is that they can accomplish their ends by being in violation of accords by pursuing unilateral accords as opposes to bilateral negotiations,” Jeff Daube, with the Zionist Organization of America, said.
 
Some say the historic diplomatic move puts the Vatican and Pope Francis in the position of supporting a corrupt and terrorist entity.
 
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in the tenth year of a four-year term and he presides over a unity government that includes Hamas in the Gaza Strip, a terror organization sworn to Israel’s destruction.
 
The Palestinian Authority also sees Jerusalem as its future capital. That means most all of Jewish and Christian holy sites in the city would be in the hands of a Muslim Palestinian state.
 
The Vatican’s decision also adds to the diplomatic momentum to recognize a Palestinian state. The U.N. Security Council looks to be the next forum soon when France is expected to introduce a resolution to recognize a Palestinian state.
________________________
Vatican Demonstrates Antisemitism
John R. Houk
© May 15, 2015
_______________________
Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’
 
And
 
What Vatican’s Move May Mean for Jerusalem’s Future
 
© Copyright 2015 . The Christian Broadcasting Network.
 

US Court Finds Palestinian Authority Guilty ,,,


Nitzana Darshan-Leitner (C) and Kent Yalowitz (2L) Fed Court PA libel

The winning legal team outside the Manhattan courtroom: Nitzana Darshan-Leitner (C) and Kent Yalowitz (2L). (Photo: Facebook)

 

 

Amazing! A Federal Court in Manhattan actually did the right thing and found the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) libel for inciting terrorism (See Also HERE) during the 2nd Intifada (Full Scope) conducted against Israel. Maybe Obama will surprise me and praise the Court’s decision.

 

JRH 2/24/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

US Court Finds Palestinian Authority Guilty of Terrorism; Damages May Exceed $655 Million

 

By: United with Israel Staff

February 24, 2015

United With Israel

 

The Palestinian Authority was found guilty of inciting terror attacks that led to the deaths of US citizens in Israel during the Second Intifada. A landmark victory for Israel!

 

Kent Yalowitz, lead prosecuting attorney of a landmark trial against Palestinian terror, proudly declared that “the Palestinian Authority and the PLO have been found liable by an American jury for six heinous terrorist attacks that killed and injured hundreds of civilians.”

 

The Israel Law Center, an Israel-based legal rights organization (known as Shurat Hadin in Hebrew), represented 11 families that took the Palestinian Authority to court for inciting, planning and carrying out six terror attacks that killed American citizens in Israel during the Second Intifada (2000-2004).

 

Following the landmark decision by a US court, Shurat Hadin’s director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, and attorney Kent Yalowitz were elated with the jury’s verdict.

Darshan-Leitner declared on Facebook: “BREAKING: Palestinian Authority & Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) FOUND GUILTY ON EVERY COUNT!”

 

“We are truly grateful that an American court has heard the evidence against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO and determined that suicide terrorism was indeed their official policy during the Second Intifada,” Darshan-Leitner stated.

 

“The defendants have already been boasting that they will appeal the decision and we will never collect on the judgment. We will not allow them to make a mockery of the US court process, however, and we continue to pursue them until it is paid in full.”

 

“If the PA and PLO have the funds to pay the families of the suicide bombers each month, then they have the money to pay these victims of Palestinian terrorism.”

 

Yalowitz explained: “If you have a policy that says [that] if you commit a terrorist act, you keep your job,” get a promotion and get paid while you’re in jail, “that says something about who you are and what you believe in,” the Jerusalem Post reports.

 

He hoped that “after years of difficult and emotional effort, we secured for the families today a small measure of justice.”

 

A large sum of $218.5 million in damages was awarded to the victims. According to applicable anti-terrorism laws, this amount will likely be tripled to a whopping sum of over $655 million.

 

Darshan-Leitner said “This historic verdict against the defendants will not bring back these families’ loved ones nor heal the physical and psychological wounds inflicted upon them but it truly is an important measure of justice and closure for them after their long years of tragic suffering and pain.”

 

This landmark verdict will likely have a major impact on the Palestinian Authority’s effort to prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Israeli government has already indicated that it intends to use the same court to charge the Palestinian Authority with terrorism and crimes against humanity.

 

Upon hearing the verdict, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “The US federal court decision determines the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority for the murderous terrorist attacks of the previous decade. Instead of drawing the requisite lesson, the Palestinian Authority is advancing steps that endanger regional stability such as the hypocritical application to the International Criminal Court even as it is allied with the Hamas terrorist organization. We expect the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism just as the US federal court has done and to back the countries that are fighting terrorism. Today as well we remember the families that lost their loved ones; our heart is with them and there is no justice that can console them.”

 

Sign the Petition to Stop Funding the Palestinian Authority

 

The Palestinian Authority openly supports and encourages terror attacks against the citizens of Israel. Terrorist groups answer this call with a bloodthirsty enthusiasm. If there was any doubt before, it has been completely eliminated this past month, as we have witnessed the most horrific terror attacks against Israelis with full support from the PA.

 

It is an outrage that the United States continues to fund the PA. They are funding terror – plain and simple. Join us in demanding that the US stops funding Palestinian terror

 

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP FUNDING THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY.

 

__________________________________

© United with Israel 2015

 

About United with Israel

 

United with Israel is a global, grassroots movement comprised of individuals who are deeply committed to the success and prosperity of Israel. Our primary mission is to build a massive network of pro-Israel activists and foster global unity with the People, Country and Land of Israel. In short, we seek to fight and win the battle of public opinion for Israel. We maximize the incredible power of social media to spread the truth about Israel to the entire world.

 

From incessant rocket attacks to threats of annihilation and fears of nuclear attack, Israel is alone in a big world of unfriendly nations. And for the first time, Israel is under intense pressure to divide Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. This is a defining moment for the nation of Israel.

 

Now more than ever, Israel needs READ THE REST

 

The Winds of Anti-Semitism


Dry Bones - Israel - Prez vs PM history

 

This year from sunset on May 5th through sunset on May 6th Israel celebrated its Independence achieved by hard fighting in 1948 after five (or six) invading Arab armies came at the newly formed Israel (SEE Also HERE) to steal the Jewish homeland again. The miracle is Israel survived the Arab-Muslim aim of exterminating Jews and terminating the Jewish State.

 

Justin Smith writes an essay that touches on the recent Independence Day and Secretary John Kerry’s insidious pro-Palestinian accusation of calling Israel an apartheid state.

 

JRH 5/10/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

The Winds of Anti-Semitism

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/10/2014 1:48 PM

 

For the past sixty-six years of this modern era, Israel has been forced to defend itself, day in and day out, from a cohesive group of fifty-seven Islamic nations across the globe, even though, since its new founding – “the Jewish State, to be called ‘Israel'” – on “the eve of the Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), Israel has appealed to the Muslims to preserve peace and participate in the rebuilding of the State on the basis of “full and equal citizenship”. But now, the decades have shown that the Islamofascists want nothing less than all of “Palestine” and the destruction of Israel, and Israel is doubly indemnified by an evil wind of anti-Semitism blowing through the international community, the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration.

 

On April 23, 2014, a nine-month long “peace talk” series of negotiations collapsed, after the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry seemed reluctant to introduce a more reasoned approach, that did not require so much more of Israel than it did the Palestinian Authority. Kerry was on a fool’s errand, if he actually thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would agree to expel 650,000 Jews living in so-called “Palestinian territory”, such as East Jerusalem; this same day, Kerry’s final-status agreement died, as Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders held hands aloft with those of the Hamas terrorists, and Israel immediately froze any further talks indefinitely.

 

On April 28th, 2014 during a White House meeting, Obama attempted to coerce and intimidate Israel by issuing a veiled threat that the U.S. might not be able to properly defend or protect Israel, if the U.S. led peace talks were not soon renewed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded that he would never compromise on Israel’s security.

 

A few days after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terrorist groups, John Kerry told the Trilateral Commission (April 29), in a blatant act of anti-Semitism, that if Israel does not cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.” This represents the first time a sitting U.S. Secretary of State has publicly endorsed an anti-Semitic view of Jews and the Jewish state.

 

With anti-Semites such as Obama and John Kerry at the helm of these peace talks, how could anyone expect them to succeed?

 

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not outcome. The Palestinians across their political and ideological spectrum have the malicious intent to found a state based on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing, while no Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

 

And yet, it is the Palestinians who demand that many areas designated for their homeland must be cleansed of all Jewish presence, before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it. These “peace-loving” Muslims are so imbued with genocidal hatred for Jews that they insist all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly removed from their homes.

 

So who is it that wants an “Apartheid State”, if not the PLO and their champion John Kerry?

 

To make matters worse, Tzipi Livni, Israeli Justice Minister and chief negotiator, has regularly weakened Israel’s position and enabled Kerry’s hostile and bigoted policy views, because she owes both positions largely to the Obama administration’s support. And, then of course there are the leftist Jews of J-Street, an American Jewish group, who use deceptive rhetoric to agitate against Israel, have embraced the PLO’s unity pact with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and are now defending Kerry’s “apartheid” remarks.

 

Last month President Abbas signed 15 international treaties after the collapse of the peace talks. Two of these were the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 protocols on the laws of war. By signing these, the PLO leaders believe they are now recognized as an “occupied state”, which if true would undermine Israel’s contention that the 1967 territories are disputed.

 

Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the PLO’s central council, stated on April 29th: “We will proceed with UN treaties and gradually into UN agencies, the last of which will be the International Criminal Court”, as he suggested that the Palestinian’s would pursue Israel’s “war crimes” and that “There will be a moment when Israel will be brought to justice.”

 

Former Mossad intelligence director, Efraim Halevy told Israel Radio, “In the eyes of our rivals, it is in the end of the day a sign of weakness__ because they get something without giving anything”. But a senior officer stated, “Official rebuke, special reports, fact-finding missions and condemnations__ they (the PLO) are not ready for that,” as he alluded to how easy it is to show that human rights are being systematically violated everyday in Gaza.

 

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable” (The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel).

 

Unilateral actions hold very clear lessons and dangers, as Israel learned through a 2005 disengagement from Gaza with thousands of rockets raining down on southern Israel, something Mahmoud Abbas may well soon discover. PLO negotiator, Saeb Erekat recently stated, “Israel cannot maintain the status quo”, and he is right, for reasons far removed from his own.

 

The propaganda and twisted rhetoric of the Islamofascists/ the PLO have led them into a dream of destruction and bloodshed, of injustice masquerading as justice and rights based upon falsehoods. And now, Abbas is considering a move to disband the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, to burden Israel with the responsibility for “the state under occupation”, scape-goating the Jewish state and inhumanely using “Palestinian refugees” as a war weapon against Israel; so, in light of this fact, Israel must move swiftly towards a One-State Solution, annexing Gaza and the West Bank, and in the process, Israel must correct the detrimental effects of 66 years of bending over backwards in the name of peace and human dignity.

 

“This is the natural right of the Jewish people to be the masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state…..Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to this proclamation….on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel Aviv…..” signed: David Ben – Gurion and 37 other founders of the State of Israel (Establishment of the State of Israel).

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

Editor John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Livni Two-State Population Exchange


Tzipi Livni is waiting for a sign regarding her return to poltiics, rather than determining her own destiny. Photo by Yani Yechiel

John R. Houk

© January 1, 2014

 

Yesterday Caroline Glick posted this article on her website: Dumping irrationality as a national strategy. I like Glick because she is no fan of the so-called land for peace Two-State Policy that robs Israel and Jews of their national heritage. I haven’t read Glick’s book entitled “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East”. From those I have read that talk about Glick’s “Manifesto” advocating a One-State Solution for Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinian, they imply the Glick advocates outright annexation of Judea-Samaria and Gaza and then give the Arabs full citizenship. I am not so sure I am on board with that path, but I would love reading her book to see if her thoughts do have an actual solution. At any rate the Obama-Kerry solution of forcing Israel to give up land and release murdering Islamic terrorists from prison is definitely an unacceptable path for Israel’s existence and to perpetuate Jewish heritage.

 

If President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have their way this land for peace garbage will also take away the eternal holy city of the Jews in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. History and the Bible are a good enough argument that the lands Islamic terrorists desire to usurp to create a Jew-hating nation are very important geographical locations to all of Judaism. In Glick’s article she is particularly scathing because to appease the Obama Administration Israel has been forced to release Jew-killing prison convicts back into the society governed autonomously by the Palestine Authority (PA) which is headed by Mahmoud Abbas who is also the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was inherited (or usurped) after Yasser Arafat died (Russian autopsy revelations). 

 

Glick’s article from yesterday is also very critical of the Centrist (though Left leaning in my opinion – Justice Minister) Tzipi Livni. Livni is determined to aid the Arabs in establishing a Palestinian State. She has recently developed a Two-State Solution plan that may be tempting for the Israeli Right to accept. Her solution is a population transfer that is basically a land-swap between Jewish Settlements and Arab populations that are in the minority in Judea-Samaria. For greater clarity this means moving Jews that are surrounded by Arabs into Judea-Samaria areas that are preeminently Jewish. And moving Arabs out of the preeminently Jewish areas of Judea-Samaria into areas that are already an Arab majority. Livni’s plan is astonishingly similar to Foreign Minister Avignor Lieberman’s plan which was roundly criticized as being a plan from an extreme Right Wing Israeli. I will be interested how Livni’s plan is received since she has a reputation of pro-Palestinian and more centrist than Right Wing. Incidentally neither Lieberman nor Livni would describe their plans as a population transfer as much as a workable Two-State Solution.

 

Frankly I believe the Arabs that call themselves Palestinian view of a plan for sovereignty will neither a Two-State or One-State Plan, rather their plan is more akin to a Palestinian State Plan that eradicates Jews and Israel altogether. You can go to Palestinian Media Watch to read and see the Jew-hatred and the vitriol against the lives and existence of Israel and Jews in particular sponsored with PA, Hamas and Hezbollah funds.

 

JRH 1/1/14

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

Livni Team Thinking Outside the Box: Swap Israeli Arabs for Settlers

By Yori Yanover
January 1st, 2014

JewishPress.com

A senior Israeli source close to the peace negotiations has told Maariv that Israel has proposed to the U.S. a population exchange with the Palestinian state that will not require a physical transfer.

 

The idea is to turn over the “Arab triangle,” where about 300 thousand Israeli Arabs live today in the eastern Sharon Valley (near Netanya), in return for the “block settlements” in Judea and Samaria, which include Gush Etzion, the Shchem area, Maale Adumim near Jerusalem and possibly the Hebron area. Such a swap would also most likely include the Jordan Valley.

 

The proposed swap would not include the “outposts,” which are more scattered and whose legal status is in dispute.

 

From the tone of the official speaking to Maariv, it appears that the idea could catch fire at this point in time, because it is far more likely to be embraced by a majority of Israeli Jews. It’s greatest claim to fame is the fact that it “only” removes 100 to 150 thousand settlers from their homes, a number which many Israelis could live with. This number has been bandied around by Science Minister Yaakov Perry in recent days, as the unavoidable “painful sacrifice” the Jewish state must endure for the sake of peace.

 

Kerry might be tempted to entertain this idea in public, even if he does not end up actually endorsing it, because it would appeal to the right wing in Israel as well as in the U.S. Fewer people get hurt, Israel is rid of part of a significant ethnic minority that can threaten the Jewish character of the state (Remember the ticking demographic bomb? It ain’t ticking so much, as Arab birthrate has been declining, but it still sounds good).

 

Last time this idea was contemplated, by current Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, it evoked a very negative, even angry response from the left, and from the Arab Israelis, who accused Lieberman of racism. Hard to tell why physically uprooting Jews is not racism, but merely redrawing the border to the west of an area rather than its east is racist.

 

Of course, the main reason the Triangle Arabs hated this proposal, and no doubt will despise it again, is because they’re nobody’s fools: why move from a Western democracy to a third world PLO (and later Hamas) dictatorship?

 

Also, the 100 to 150 thousand settlers and their loved ones will not be enamoured with the expulsion part. And, of course, the Palestinian negotiators will hate it because, to be fair, it kind of favors Israel, legitimizing upwards of half a million Jewish settlers, while at the same time helping it unload an ancient security problem—the Arab Triangle.

 

In my humble opinion, while I remain certain of the hopelessness of the Kerry effort, beginning to end, I must admit that this is just the kind of out of the box thinking that would boost the near-defunct 2-state solution.

 

Did you hug a released Palestinian terrorist today?
______________________________________

Livni Two-State Population Exchange

John R. Houk

© January 1, 2014

____________________________________

Livni Team Thinking Outside the Box: Swap Israeli Arabs for Settlers

 

© 2014 The Jewish Press. All rights reserved.

Palestinian Myths: Jerusalem is Ours


Dr. Amos Orkan’s 1991 vision for the Third Temple, which was intended to rise on the Temple Mount plaza. Photo by 'Dreamscapes: Unbuilt Jerusalem'. Fantasies of reviving the Western Wall, the sole remnant of the wall that supported the platform on which stood the ancient Temple, began to flourish with the conquest of East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. Various proposals for construction in the Wall’s plaza piled up on the Jerusalem city engineer’s desk during the ensuing six years. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/shavuot-2013/myriad-schemes-for-revamping-the-western-wall-plaza-have-fallen-by-the-wayside-since-1967.premium-1.523981

 

The Palestinian Authority President and the Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman (terrorist organization) and the head of Fatah (principle terrorist organization within PLO umbrella) Mahmoud Abbas delivered a Christian message full of downright lies pertaining to Israel, Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple Mount area. Renowned scholar David Bukay refutes the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians leader by laying out the historical facts. You can believe a lie and be damned or you can believe the truth and blessed.

 

 

JRH 12/26/13 (Hat Tip: Beowulf – ccpa Yahoo Group)

Please Support NCCR

*****************************************

Palestinian Myths: Jerusalem is Ours

 

Posted by Rachel Ehrenfeld

By David Bukay

December 25th, 2013 @ 12:35AM

American Center for Democracy

 

In his preposterous Christmas greeting, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, claimed: “Jesus was a Palestinian messenger.” He also used the opportunity to deny the right of the Jews and their State of Israel, to their 3,000 year-old capital city Jerusalem. Carried away by his efforts to delegitimize the Jews and Israel, Abbas went on to say, “Our prayers are with the…mosques and churches (added emphasis) … of Jerusalem which remind the world of the Arab identity of our occupied capital.”

 

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor, rebuked Abbas’s “outrageous rewriting of Christian history,” suggesting “He should have read the Gospel before uttering such offensive nonsense.” Strangely, the Vatican did not rush to condemn Abbas’s outrageous declaration that Jesus (the Christian God) was a Palestinian (i.e. a Muslim, not a Jew).

 

However, we wish you a very happy celebration of the anniversary of the birth of the only Jewish settler whose right to call Bethlehem, home, has been never protested throughout the world (until now).

 

Rachel Ehrenfeld     

_  ___   ____    ____   ___  ___

Palestinian Myths: Jerusalem is Ours- Part I

By David Bukay*

 

This latest attack is part of the Palestinian effort to delegitimize the Jews rights for Israel and their 3,000-year-old capital city, Jerusalem.

 

There is the common saying: “A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable.” However, this saying does not apply to Palestinian claims. However, they rely on this saying to help sell the absolute fabrications and distortions of claiming Jerusalem as part their made up historical lore. For it is hard for average people, international media, world public opinion, and states’ leadership to grasp and internalize the totality of nothing relating the Palestinians’ claims and pretentions.

 

The Palestinian legends and myths, however, are tightly tied to the development of an intense propaganda machinery of denial of any Jewish sanctity for Jerusalem, as if “Jerusalem has always been under Muslim sovereignty from time immemorial.” The Palestinians do not have any historical, religious, political, or cultural connection to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not and never has been part of their history. The mosques erected on the Temple mount during the Umayyad Dynasty did not achieve any importance in other Muslim dynasties until the 20th century.

 

Yet, two important facts combined together can be clearly discerned: first, that for the Jewish diaspora, from 135 AD onward, the Land of Israel has never become a politically independent entity with a distinct identity as a nation; and, second, that Jerusalem was never the capital city of any empire or any independent regime or nation, and was not even ever an important city to any of the empires that controlled it besides the Jews. There have been only three recognized national, politically independent entities in the history of the Land of Israel: the First Jewish Kingdom, from the conquest of Canaan (1400 BCE – 586 BCE); the Second Jewish kingdom, until the end of the Bar Kochva revolt (538 BCE – 135 AD); and the State of Israel, since 1948. This also applies to Jerusalem, which had been the capital of the First and Second Jewish Kingdoms, and now the capital of the State of Israel.

 

Never bothered by the facts and well trained to twist them, Abbas (Abu-Mazen), on February 26, 2012, in Qatar’s International Conference on Jerusalem, accused Israel of Judaizing al-Quds, while obliterating its Palestinian character. Moreover, he declared that Israel is robbing Jerusalem of its historical and religious Palestinian character and actively pursuing this goal on three fronts: First, by changing the character and architectural structure of al-Quds from its cultural and historical Palestinian roots. Second, by employing processes of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens and sites, begun in 1967, with unprecedented acceleration in the construction of settlements and the demolishing of Palestinian homes with their historical symbolism. Third, by impoverishing al-Quds, because throughout history it has always represented a center of thriving of the Palestinian people.

 

Jerusalem in Palestinian Propaganda

 

This theme of an old historical Palestinian Jerusalem that belongs solely to the old historical Palestinian people is a central theme in the mythical propaganda, which is based on pure lies, total fabrications and factual distortions repeatedly released by the Palestinians. According the Mufti of Jerusalem, Israel forges and falsifies the basic facts and history of Jerusalem which belongs solely to Islam and the Palestinians. Israel is said to steal the original Palestinian identity of Jerusalem and its cultural heritage. This theme is reiterated in the Palestinian media which claims Jerusalem to be the religious, political, and spiritual capital of Palestine. As such, Israel has no rights to Jerusalem — not religiously, not legally, not politically, and not historically. Everything in Jerusalem is Palestinian in its purest origin. Jerusalem has been the historical, religious, cultural, and scientific capital of the Palestinians from time immemorial, the center of the Islamic world, and the focus of world civilization.

 

 

The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Imams frequently use lies and venomous libel terminology to deliver inflammatory sermons to incite its people. Israel is accused of acting relentlessly to destroy the city’s culture and history by erasing the city’s Arab, Islamic, and Christian historical monuments. Other accusations against Israel, referred to as “the occupation authority,” include “ethnic cleansing”; “Judaizing” of Jerusalem—replacing its Arab population with Jews; infesting Arab neighborhoods with super aggressive rats; and systematic distribution of addictive drugs to its Arab population. They claim that Arab Jebusite king Malkizedeq built Jerusalem, as the most glorious place in the world, the closest to the kingdom of Allah, that it was always populated by pure Arab Palestinians. There is nothing Jewish in the city whatsoever.  Moreover, they claim that any mention in the Bible to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a deliberate falsification.

 

Furthermore, archeological relics are said to deny Jewish history in Palestinian Jerusalem. Not only is there refutation of the Jewish Temple from an archaeological perspective, but Jerusalem as a whole is denied any Jewish roots. Dr. Marwan Abu-Khalaf, director of the Archaeological Institute at Al-Quds University argues that:

 

“The archaeological treasures in Jerusalem emphasize the depth of the city’s heritage and history; they emphasize its Arabness and refute the Israeli claims that it is a Jewish city… It is known that perhaps under every stone and in every corner, on every street and at every turn in Jerusalem there are relics. These relics say, ‘We are Arab, we are Muslim, we are Christian.’”

 

Another Palestinian scholar made the following claims:

 

“Israel not only steals the land, but also the history of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Arab civilization… Jerusalem is the religious, historical, cultural and scientific capital of the Palestinian people in particular and of the Arab nation in general. It is the pinnacle of civilizations of the entire world. When the Arab Jebusite king Malkizedeq built the city of Jerusalem, naming it Jebus and designating it the capital of his country six thousand years ago, none of the world’s capitals existed yet… The invaders who steal the city’s geography, are trying to also steal its history.”

 

He, who wishes to realize how Muslim scholars twist scientific truths and invent legends, is encouraged to read Dr. Marwan Abu Khalaf:

 

“The fadā’il al-Quds literature may have existed from the time of the Prophet and continued to be transmitted in the Umayyad and later Islamic periods… The Islamization of Jerusalem occurred in the first year A.H. (620 A.D.), the year when Allah ordered Muslims to face the city as their first Qibla, and when the night journey and ascension to heaven took place.”

 

Sheikh Kamal Rian of the Israeli Islamic Movement has taken an even more extreme approach, asserting that the al-Aqsa Mosque is more sacred than al-Medina’s because it is mentioned in the Qur’ān. It is the closest point between Earth and Heaven, providing the only direct connection and the entrance to heaven. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad in Mecca, and Muhammad ascended to Heaven in al-Aqsa.

 

Yet, the twisted facts reach the highest peak in the Palestinian claim that the al-Aqsa Mosque is the entire Jerusalem. Therefore, Jerusalem in its entirety is Islamic.

 

A collection of similar claims demonstrates the absurdity of the lies: Abraham was not a Jew; the Jews never lived in ancient Israel; the Jews never had any connection to Jerusalem; Jerusalem was never a Jewish city; there never was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; the Western Wall is not a Jewish holy site; the Tombs of Rachel and Joseph are actually Muslim sites.

 

Recently, a new trend cherishes Jerusalem’s (made up) place in the Palestinians’ collective national memory, thus imitating the two-thousand-year-old Jewish affirmation of allegiance to Jerusalem:  ”If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, O Jerusalem, let my tongue cleave to roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” (Psalms, 137:5-6).

 

To better indoctrinate the Arab/Muslim population, Palestinian television has produced a video clip saying: “Forget I my right arm; forget I my left arm; forget I the light of the eye and the cries of the songs — if I forget Jerusalem.” It is followed by the Friday sermon of the Palestinian minister for religious affairs: “Without Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, as it was along the entire history, there will be no peace.”

 

The Legendary Jewish Temple

 

Palestinian propaganda has always aimed at denying the Jewish Temple’s location in Jerusalem. The PA’s Mufti, ‘Ikrima Sabri, declared that the Jewish Temple was in Nablus or perhaps Bethlehem, and that al-Aqsa predates the Jewish antiquities. Arafat claimed that the Jews “consider Hebron to be holier than Jerusalem.” Indeed, Dennis Ross attributed much of the Camp David failure to Yasser Arafat, who not only repeated “old mythologies” but invented “a new one … [that] the Temple did not exist in Jerusalem, but in Nablus.” Arafat told Clinton: “I am a religious man, and I will not allow it to be written of me [in history] that I have … confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple underneath the mountain.” However, later on he went even further in his denial of Jewish history, saying that not only had the Jewish Temple never existed in Jerusalem, but that it had never existed anywhere in Palestine.

 

Sheikh Muhammad Husayn, the director of the al-Aqsa Mosque, asserted that the Jews “claim that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built over the ruins of the alleged Temple … This meant to erase the Islamic culture and to replace it with their alleged culture … This is a place for Muslims, only Muslims. There is no Temple here, only al-Aqsa Mosque and the Qubat al-Sakhrā‘ (Dome of the Rock).”

 

This denial strategy is exemplified by Saleh Rafat of the PLO Executive Committee:

 

“We revive the Palestinian heritage and cling to it in order to counter all of the attempts by the Israeli occupation to steal the national heritage and to falsify it with the claim that it is their heritage… Every part of our heritage in our land, they claim is their heritage – even the tunnels they are trying to dig beneath the al-Aqsa Mosque… The Israelis claim that they are seeking an alleged Temple.”

 

The denial of the Jewish Temple is typically expressed through the use of the word al-Maz’ûm (alleged). The main argument is that no proof of the Temple’s existence has ever been found. An editorial in al-Hayat al-Jadidah in December 2011 is indicative of this theme that the “Jewish Temple” is a big lie, a pure Jewish invention. Mahmud Abbas and all the heads of the PA leadership used the term “Alleged Temple” almost 100 times in the years 2011-2, with their ongoing campaign to deny and to reject any traces of Jerusalem’s Jewish history. Abbas has declared:

 

“Israel’s purpose is to achieve its black goals: destroying the al-Aqsa Mosque, building its ‘Alleged Temple,’ taking over the Muslim and Christian holy sites, and destroying Jerusalem’s institutions in order to empty it, uproot its residents, and continue its occupation and Judaization… all of Israel’s archeological digs and tunnels… will not change the reality of the city… and will not create a Jewish right based on fantasy and legends… There will be no peace, security, or stability unless the occupation will be evacuated from our holy city and the eternal capital of our state.”

 

On many other occasions he stated:

 

“Jerusalem only has Islamic and Christian history; Israel’s ‘Judaization’ is stealing Jerusalem’s cultural, human, and Islamic-Christian religious history… Israel is creating artificial heritage with a Jewish spirit at the expense of Jerusalem’s true and authentic identity, as an Arab, Islamic and Christian city.”

 

Likewise, Jamal Amar, an archaeologist at bir Zeit University, has denied the existence of an ancient Jewish Temple, calling it “myth” and using the word “the alleged temple.” He emphasized the occupation’s feverish attempts to find antiquities, as architectural testimony, or any other sort of proof to support their hectic efforts to rebuild the alleged Temple, but claimed that all of their findings were from the Arab and Islamic periods, especially the Umayyad and Abbasid period, up to the Ottoman period.

 

Similarly, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud al-Habbash announced:

 

“Jerusalem is the key to peace, and Jerusalem can ignite a thousand and one wars. Unless the issue of Jerusalem is solved, so that it returns to its owners; unless Jerusalem will be Palestinian, as it was throughout history, the capital of the Palestinian state and the capital of the Palestinian people, there is no peace. There is no peace without Jerusalem… The term ‘war’ cannot be erased from the lexicon of this region as long as Jerusalem is occupied,… Jerusalem has to return to its owners. And we are its only owners.”

 

And Walid Awad, former Director of Foreign Publications of the PA Ministry of Information, stated: “The fact is that almost thirty years of excavations did not reveal anything Jewish… Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, despite the biblical myth implanted in some minds… This is the greatest historic crime of forgery.”

 

The following propaganda is constantly promoted on Palestinian television:

 

“There is a view that where Masjid al-Aqsa stands was the Holy of Holies of the fictitious Temple. This is merely an illusion. There is no remnant of it. It’s a myth. A story of no value… after 60 years of digging, they have found nothing at all. Not a water jug, not a coin, not any earthen vessel, no bronze weapons, no piece of metal, absolutely nothing of this myth, because it is a myth and a lie. This digging has not left a single meter unturned, but it has achieved absolutely nothing.”

 

`Ikrima Sabri, the PA Mufti of Jerusalem, reiterated the notion: “There is not even the smallest indication of the existence of a Jewish Temple…in the whole city there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish history.” Jarar al Qidwa, former advisor on educational affairs to Arafat, concurred: “Solomon’s Temple, I believe, was built by the Canaanites… when our Canaanite forefathers came to Palestine; they built the Temple … in Jerusalem.” Taysir Tamimi, PA chief religious official also agreed:

 

“I know of Muslim and Christian holy sites. I don’t know of any Jewish holy sites in it… Israel has been excavating since 1967 in search of remains of their Temple or their fictitious Jewish history.”

 

The Western Wall

 

Not surprisingly, the Palestinians claim that the Western wall has nothing to do with Judaism, and that the Jews refer to the Western Wall in a “false and fraudulent way,” because it is the al-Buraq Wall only, located in the Mughrabi Quarter. `Ikrima Sabri, the PA’s mufti, described the Western Wall as “just a fence belonging to the Muslim holy site” and repeated the oft-heard declaration that “there is not a single stone in the Wailing Wall relating to Jewish history.” It is said that Jews have no connection to any part of the Temple Mount, including the Western Wall, and that the al-Buraq Wall and its plaza are Muslim religious property. As such, the Jews cannot legitimately claim this wall, either religiously or historically.

 

In a study published by the PA Ministry of Information in November 2010, al-Mutawakil Taha wrote:

 

“The Zionist occupation falsely and unjustly claims that it owns this wall, which it calls the Western Wall or Kotel… this wall was never part of the so-called Temple Mount, but Muslim tolerance allowed the Jews to stand in front of it and weep over its destruction… no Muslim or Arab or Palestinian had the right to give up one stone of al-Buraq Wall or other religious sites.”

 

Israel Wishes to Destroy al-Aqsa

 

Israel’s actions in Jerusalem and archeological excavation near al-Aqsa are viewed as part of a satanic plot, an increasing Israeli madness aimed at destroying the al-Aqsa mosque in order to establish the alleged Temple, claim the Palestinians. They go on claiming Israel digs tunnels beneath as part of “building a Jewish city underground at the expense of the old city, and its historic and holy sites… The occupation continues to pursue the excavations until it reaches its grand and dangerous goal of destroying the mosque… The al-Aqsa Mosque and the archaeological artifacts, religious structures and holy sites it houses are all under a serious threat of collapse at any moment.”

 

The Palestinians fabricate stories they use to accuse Israel of a deliberate effort to destroy al-Aqsa and to erect the Jewish Temple in its stead. They go on to claim that Israel is constructing a bridge in order to allow more than 5,000 soldiers in armored forces to enter the platform of the al-Aqsa Mosque in their failed attempts to look for their Temple, which they falsely claim existed. This bridge can hold hundreds of soldiers, police officers and vehicles, strategically placed to allow Israeli forces to raid the al-Aqsa Mosque. Moreover, “Israel is stationing missile launchers in the Old City in occupied Jerusalem for bombarding al-Aqsa mosque with missile attacks. The Occupation has closed the city’s gates to Muslims and Christians and is making the city into a Jewish stronghold.”

 

For the Palestinians, the result is clear, as put by Yasser Arafat: “I will not agree to any Israeli sovereign presence in Jerusalem, and “there is nothing to negotiate about and compromise on when it comes to Jerusalem.” In 2000′s Camp David Convention, Arafat demanded sovereignty over “Jerusalem in its entirety, entirety, entirety.” He reiterated that “al-Quds is in the innermost of the feeling of our people and the feeling of all Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in the world.” Jerusalem has become the center of the Palestinian cause, a casus-belli that “no Palestinian can give up.”

___________________________________

* David Bukay is Professor of Middle East Studies at the School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa. He is the author of Muhammad’s Monsters (2004); Yasser Arafat, the Politics of Paranoia (2005); From Muhammad to Bin Laden (2007); Crossovers: anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism (2010), and has published numerous articles, in referee journals, books and the internet.

 

Copyright © 2013 | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred


Hajj Amin al Husseini - Adolf Hitler

 

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

 

I received an email from the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR). The purpose of the email is to spread information on a fifteen minute documentary “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”. I have known about this information on this so-called Palestinian movement for some time. Incredulously too many Americans are completely out of touch of the Nazi-Radical Islamic cooperation that began in WWII. You have to ask, “What in the world did Aryan-Nazi Supremacists and Muslim-Arabic (of a Semitic language group) have in common?”

 

Of course the answer is JEW-HATRED. Islam has never been Jew-friendly especially since old Mo conquered Medina and began the execution of Arab-Jewish tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Jew-hatred became elevated among Arab Muslims largely at the Nazi support of the WWII Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al Husseini. Al-Husseini propagandized Jew-Hatred because European Jews had begun flooding back into their ancestral homeland largely with initial British help – See HERE and HERE (sadly the British transitioned to a pro-Arab stand by the time Israel proclaimed their independence in 1948).

 

So this is what is going to happen in this post. I am going to begin with the email which has two links. One to the documentary which is linked on Vimeo and the second link is to the HIR text. I am going to use a Youtube version of the Vimeo link because it is easier to post on my blogs. On the HIR text link there is a side panel which you will have to go to the website to read. I am just cross posting the text pertaining to “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”.

 

JRH 9/16/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

HIR: New Documentary: The Nazis and the Palestinian Movement

 

Sent by Francisco Gil-White

From Historical and Investigative Research

Sent: Aug 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM

 

The Israeli government is negotiating to give PLO/Fatah (the ‘Palestinian Authority’) the strategic territories of Judea and Samaria. This is only possible because ordinary Israelis, and ordinary Westerners, still don’t know about the German Nazi roots of PLO/Fatah.

 

FACES/HIR has produced:

 

1) A (short) new documentary about this question, available on Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/69991225

 

2) An article to accompany the video (it contains all the relevant documentation): http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm                        

 

Please give both a wide circulation

 

HISTORICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH
F.A.C.E.S. (Foundation for the Analysis of Conflict, Ethnic and Social)

_____________________

VIDEO: The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement

 

Posted by jomjomnl

Published on Aug 20, 2013

______________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

Documentary and discussion

 

By Francisco Gil-White

26 July 2013

Historical and Investigative Research

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini is the father of the Palestinian Movement. He created PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state. And he was mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the leaders of that organization. Husseini was also, during World War II, a top Nazi leader who co-directed with Adolf Eichmann the death camp system that murdered between 5 and 6 million European Jews, also known as the Final Solution. These facts are not widely known or understood. Neither has their implication for our understanding of Israeli ruling elite behavior been properly appreciated. We present a short documentary and a discussion.

……………………………………………

Table of Contents

 

o   Introduction

 

o   The Video

 

o   Discussion

 

o   Readings relevant to this video

 

Introduction

 

For many years now, almost every day, all over the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is headline news. And yet most people still don’t know that PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state, was created by a top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution. In other words, the ‘Palestinian state’—to be carved out of strategic territory of the Jewish state—will be governed by the spawn of the man responsible for the Nazi murder of between 5 and 6 million European Jews.

 

The short documentary below explains PLO/Fatah’s history.

 

This documentary is now on Vimeo, but it was first uploaded to You Tube. In the first two days, almost with no publicity, the You Tube webpage quickly logged more than 1,500 visits. Then, on the third day, Israelis began reporting that You Tube was not allowing them to access the video. You Tube’s explanation is that when a video is blocked in this manner it can be due to only one of two reasons:

 

1)     the You Tube account-owner placed country restrictions on the video; or else

 

2)     You Tube is complying with local laws

 

We did not place country restrictions on the video. That leaves us with the second possibility.

 

But what local laws can You Tube be complying with? To my knowledge, no laws have yet been passed by the Israeli Knesset against the dissemination of historical facts.

 

Some have speculated that “we are complying with local laws” is a cover for “the Israeli government told us to block it.” Others ask: “But why would the Israeli government even want to block this video?”

 

Let us consider the following:

 

1)     PLO/Fatah—created by a leader of the Final Solution—was brought inside the Jewish state—created (supposedly) to protect the Jewish people from Final Solutions—because the Israeli government signed the 1993-94 Oslo Accord.

 

2)     But why? In 1982 Menachem Begin had already (essentially) destroyed PLO/Fatah and chased the remnant out of Lebanon to its new base in Tunis. So in 1993-94 the Israeli government was breathing new life into a defeated, moribund PLO/Fatah.

 

3)     In doing so the Israeli government gifted PLO/Fatah with its most important victory: legitimacy on the world stage, and lordship over the Arab Muslims in the strategic ‘disputed territories’ of Judea and Samaria.

 

4)     The Israeli government did all this this without informing ordinary Israelis about the roots of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution. Instead, it legitimized PLO/Fatah’s claim to have abandoned terrorism for ‘peace.’

 

5)     With PLO/Fatah’s entry, terrorism against Israelis immediately quintupled, and the security situation worsened for the long term because PLO/Fatah has been indoctrinating the Arab Muslims in the disputed territories into its ecstatic genocidal ideology (not precisely a secret).

 

6)     The Israeli government is still trying to sell the Israeli people—and Jews worldwide—on the idea that a sensible solution to Israel’s security woes is to give the strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the ‘West Bank’) to PLO/Fatah.

 

7)     There is a real possibility that the Israeli government will make this strategic territory judenrein (this is a German Nazi term meaning ‘cleansed of Jews’) for PLO/Fatah. They already did it in Gaza.

 

8)     During the long years since the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process began, the Israeli government still hasn’t informed the Israelis about PLO/Fatah’s origins in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

But perhaps the most important points are the following:

 

9)     This Oslo ‘Peace’ Process could have been quickly killed in its tracks if, when the US government first began bullying for it, the prime minister of Israel had simply called an international press conference to explain the origins of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

10)  At any point since 1993-94, by holding such a press conference, the Israeli government could have scored a major propaganda victory in favor of Israeli Jews, and in favor of ejecting PLO/Fatah from Israel. But no such press conference has yet been called.

 

On the basis of the above 10 points one may conclude that, if the information in this video becomes widely known, those running the Israeli government will have some egg on their faces. In fact, this information raises the sharpest questions about them, and about their intentions. Here then is a plausible motive for the Israeli government to block the video: to stop Israelis from asking such questions.

 

But in fact questions must be asked not merely about the Israeli government (in the narrow bureaucratic sense) but also about the Israeli ruling elite more broadly. For none of the major politicians who declare themselves opponents of the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process and its ‘Two State Solution’ have educated Israelis about the German Nazi Roots of PLO/Fatah. Why?

 

The video follows below. And below the video is a discussion about the evidence it presents, and how this evidence has been either ignored or lied about for many years.

 

The Video

 

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT from FACESHIRHOME on Vimeo. [SlantRight Editor: You can click the Vimeo link or watch the Youtube version above]

 

Discussion

 

Immediately after the war, Husseini’s Nazi activities were well understood, as the article from The Nation (1947) which I have posted to the right of this column attests. But then a tremendous silence about Husseini and his Nazi years developed. Certainly the media, which displays always the latest news on the Arab-Israeli conflict in its front pages, has had nothing to say about the Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah ever since PLO/Fatah was created in the 1960s. The silence in academia has been equally deafening.

 

Historian Rafael Medoff, in an article from 1996, wrote the following:

 

“Early scholarship on the Mufti, such as the work of Maurice Pearlman and Joseph Schechtman, while hampered by the inaccessibility of some key documents, at least succeeded in conveying the basic facts of the Mufti’s career as a Nazi collaborator. One would have expected the next generation of historians, with greater access to relevant archival materials (not to mention the broader perspective that the passage of time may afford) to improve upon the work of their predecessors. Instead, however, a number of recent histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict have played fast and loose with the evidence, producing accounts that minimize or even justify the Mufti’s Nazi activity.”[1]

 

What Medoff refers to above as “early scholarship on the Mufti” is early indeed. The work of Pearlman and Schechtman that he cites is from 1947 and 1965:

 

Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz.

 

Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer, New York, 1965.

 

After this ensued a tremendous academic silence on the Mufti Husseini. In fact, Medoff can refer us to no academic work on Husseini before 1990. His article, recall, is from 1996. The few academic mentions of Husseini that he could find from 1990 to 1996 were either completely silent on the Mufti’s Nazi years—as if they had never happened—or else they relegated a ‘summary’ of those years to a single paragraph (or even just a sentence) that left almost everything out. Some authors even claimed (entirely in passing) that Husseini’s Nazi activities had been supposedly imagined by “Zionist propagandists.”

 

But recent scholars who have studied Hajj Amin al Husseini in depth, such as Rafael Medoff, have confirmed what his early biographers had already established:

 

1)     that Husseini traveled to Berlin in late 1941, met with Hitler, and discussed with him the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews (whom Husseini had already been killing for some 20 years);

 

2)     that Husseini spent the entire war in Nazi-controlled Europe as a Nazi collaborator;

 

3)     that Husseini helped spread Nazi propaganda to Muslims worldwide (one of his famous exhortations goes like this: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”[2]);

 

4)     that Husseini recruited thousands of Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims to Heinrich Himmler’s SS, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and tens of thousands of Jews and Roma (‘Gypsies’).

 

It is beyond dispute that Husseini did all that. And in fact photographic evidence of Husseini’s Nazi collaboration abounds on the internet.

 

But there has been quite an effort to whitewash Husseini’s responsibility in the German Nazi death camp system specifically—in other words, his responsibility in the Holocaust, or as the Jews more properly say, in the Shoah (‘Catastrophe’). One example of this whitewashing effort is Wikipedia’s page on Husseini.

 

Because of its emblematic nature, I shall now quote from the Wikipedia article on Hajj Amin al Husseini as I found it on 14 July, 2013 and then comment.

 

[Quote from Wikipedia begins here]

 

Al-Husseini settled in Berlin in late 1941 and resided there for most of the war.[153] Various sources have repeated allegations, mostly ungrounded in documentary evidence, that he visited the death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and Mauthausen.[153] At the Nuremberg trials, one of Adolf Eichmann‘s deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated that al-Husseini had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich. Most of these allegations are completely unfounded.[153]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Consider first the phrase “completely unfounded” as it attaches to any part of Wisliceny’s Nuremberg testimony.

 

As part of the legal proceedings at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, two independent witnesses (Andrej or Endre Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner)—both of whom had had personal contact with Dieter Wisliceny during the war—reported to the Tribunal that in wartime conversations with Wisliceny he had said certain things about Husseini’s role in the Final Solution (the genocidal enterprise in which Wisliceny was not just anybody but a highly-placed administrator). The Steiner and Kasztner testimonies are quite similar to each other. Before his execution for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg Tribunal investigators called on Wisliceny to either confirm or deny what these two independent witnesses had said. Wisliceny did correct them on minor points but he confirmed what they had both stated concerning Husseini’s central and originating role in the extermination program (consult footnote [3] to read the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies).

 

So are these “completely unfounded” allegations? If so, that would mean:

 

1)     that in light of other, better established evidence, what Wisliceny stated is impossible; and/or

 

2)     that Wisliceny is less credible as a witness than witnesses who contradicted his statements.

 

So I ask: On the basis of what evidence do the Wikipedia editors argue that “most of these allegations are completely unfounded”?

 

At first it seems as though Wikipedia editors have provided three sources but on closer inspection it is the same footnote, repeated three times (in the space of four sentences). The footnote contains this:

 

Gerhard Höpp (2004). “In the Shadow of the Moon.” In Wolfgang G. Schwanitz. Germany and the Middle East 1871–1945. Markus Wiener, Princeton. pp. 217–221.

 

The title is incomplete. Gerhard Höpp’s article is: “In the Shadow of the Moon: Arab Inmates in Nazi Concentration Camps.” The full title makes it obvious that this article is not about Husseini, something that readers who see only the truncated title in the Wikipedia reference will not realize.

 

But, anyway, what does Höpp say—entirely in passing—about Wisliceny’s testimony concerning Husseini? He says this (and only this):

 

“Al-Husaini… is said not only to have had knowledge of the concentration camps but also to have visited them. Various authors speak of the camps at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and Mauthausen. While the assumption that he visited the Auschwitz camp in the company of Adolf Eichmann is supported by an affidavit of Rudolf Kasztner, referring to a note by the Eichmann collaborator Dieter Wisliceny, the other allegations are entirely unfounded.” (p.221)

 

Recall that Höpp is Wikipedia’s thrice-cited source to ‘support’ that “most” of the following three allegations are “completely unfounded”:

 

1)     that Husseini visited death camps

 

2)     that Husseini encouraged the extermination of the Jews;

 

3)     that Husseini met with Eichmann to discuss said extermination.

 

But notice that Höpp says absolutely nothing about allegations 2 and 3.

 

And notice that, concerning allegation 1, Höpp uses the phrase “entirely unfounded” in a manner exactly opposite to the Wikipedia editors who invoke him. For the Wikipedia editors, “most” of what Wisliceny says is “completely unfounded,” whereas for Höpp it is those allegations not backed by Wisliceny’s testimony that he considers “entirely unfounded.”

 

Moreover, Höpp states:

 

“Speculation on this and other misdeeds by the Mufti appear unnecessary in view of his undisputed collaboration with the Nazis…” (p.221)

 

In other words, since we already know that Husseini was a rabid anti-Semite who himself organized mass killings of Jews before he met the Nazis, and then also with the Nazis, and discussed with Hitler the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews, and shouted on the Nazi radio “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,” is it not a waste of time to argue back and forth whether Husseini did or did not visit this or that death camp with Eichmann?

 

But, I might add, why doubt it? And why doubt that such a man encouraged the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews and also met with Eichmann to discuss this program? (Unless, of course, such expressions of doubt are intended as an apology for the Mufti…)

 

Let us now continue with the Wikipedia article:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

A single affidavit by Rudolf Kastner reported that Wisliceny told him that he had overheard Husseini say he had visited Auschwitz incognito in Eichmann’s company.[154] Eichmann denied this at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961. …Eichmann stated that he had only been introduced to al-Husseini during an official reception, along with all other department heads. In the final judgement [sic], the Jerusalem court stated: “In the light of this partial admission by the Accused, we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti and the Accused. In our view it is not important whether this conversation took place in the Accused’s office or elsewhere. On the other hand, we cannot determine decisive findings with regard to the Accused on the basis of the notes appearing in the Mufti’s diary which were submitted to us.”[157] Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, “The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.”[158]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

I am confounded by Wikipedia’s choice of reliable experts. The Jerusalem court that tried Eichmann for Crimes Against Humanity concluded that “we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti [Husseini] and the Accused [Eichmann]” (the topic of which was to discuss how to exterminate the European Jews); but Wikipedia editors prefer the contrary opinion of philosopher Hannah Arendt, according to whom any claim of a relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is “unfounded.” And why do they prefer Arendt? Because she “attended the complete Eichmann trial.”

 

Didn’t the judges also attend?

 

Anyway, let’s look at Arendt more closely. To her, two independent testimonies at Nuremberg concerning Husseini’s relationship with Eichmann, later corroborated by Wisliceny, a highly-placed eyewitness, are “rumours.” This is strange. And, against this, Arendt simply accepts Eichmann’s denial. Doubly strange. Why has Eichmann earned so much respect from Hannah Arendt?

 

But more to the point: Do we have reasons to consider Eichmann a more credible witness than Wisliceny?

 

Arendt shouldn’t think so. She wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil so that she could extend herself in deep ruminations about the human soul based on (odd choice) Eichmann’s strange behavior at trial, which led her to call him a “clown.” Wisliceny, by contrast, was universally considered by prosecutors as a very careful witness, who was painstaking in correcting the smallest details in the testimony he was asked to comment on.[4]

 

(And Eichmann most certainly had motive to lie in order to diminish Husseini’s role in the Holocaust relative to his own, for he was obviously proud of what he had done. Moreover, Husseini was still at large, and busy organizing the ‘Palestinian’ movement, so better not to say anything that could support a manhunt plus extradition procedures that might derail Husseini’s ongoing effort to exterminate the Jews in Israel, a project certainly dear to Eichmann’s putrefacient heart, a project that, as he sat in the witness box, no doubt swam before his mind’s eye as a pleasant future outcome to engulf those sitting in judgment of him, or their children.)

 

Let us continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Rafael Medoff concludes that “actually there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[159]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Rafael Medoff is expressing an opinion. Is it reasonable? Here is the full passage in Medoff’s article:

 

“With regard to the crucial question of what the Mufti knew and when he knew it, the evidence requires especially careful sifting, and earlier scholars did not always take sufficient care. Pearlman, for example, accepted as fact the unfounded postwar claim by Wisliceny that the Mufti was “one of the initiators” of the genocide. Of course, Pearlman was writing in 1946-1947, when the genesis of the annihilation process was not yet fully understood. Other accounts at that time, such as a 1947 book written by Bartley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, likewise accepted Wisliceny’s claim. Schechtman, writing in 1964-1965, should have known better. He made much of the fact that the Mufti first arrived in Berlin shortly before the Wannsee conference, as if the decision to slaughter the Jews was made at Wannsee, when in fact the mass murder began in Western Russia the previous summer (at a time when the Mufti was still deeply embroiled in the pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad). Schechtman eventually conceded that ‘it would be both wrong and misleading to assume that the presence of Haj Amin el-Husseini was the sole, or even the major factor in the shaping and intensification of the Nazi ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which supplanted forced emigration by wholesale extermination.’ Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[5]

 

Medoff’s argument turns on a semantic point. If we agree with him that the mass killings of Jews on the Nazi Eastern front, which began before Husseini arrived in Berlin, are part of the ‘Final Solution,’ then Husseini is not “one of the originators” of the ‘Final Solution.’ But the question is not what we agree to call ‘Final Solution.’ The question is whether the Nazis had yet decided, before Husseini alighted in Berlin, to create a death camp system to kill all of the European Jews. They had not. And that decision was formalized at Wannsee, indeed shortly after Husseini arrived in Berlin.

 

 

Consider what historians say about the established chronology of changes in Nazi policy on the so-called ‘Jewish Question.’

 

Gunnar Paulsson explains that “expulsion”—not extermination—“had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews.”[6] Tobias Jersak writes: “Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt’s documentation on the SS’s Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the ‘Jewish Question,’ it has been undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the ‘Jewish Question’ aimed at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine.”[7] Even after the conquest of Poland, writes Paulsson, “Jewish emigration continued to be permitted and even encouraged, while other expulsion plans were considered.”[8] Christopher Simpson points out that, though many Jews were being murdered, and people such as Reinhard Heydrich of the SS pushed for wholesale extermination, “other ministries” disagreed, and these favored “deportation and resettlement,” though they disagreed about where to put the Jews and how much terror to apply to them.[9] And so, “until the autumn of 1941,” conclude Marrus & Paxton, “no one defined the final solution with precision, but all signs pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified project of mass emigration.”[10]

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the autumn of 1941”—to be precise, on 9 November 1941. So yes, there had already been mass killings of Jews on the Eastern front, but for the hypothesis that Husseini had something to do with the Nazi decision to set up the death camp system in order to kill every last living European Jew (instead of sending most to ‘Palestine’), Husseini arrived right on time.

 

The last part of Medoff’s passage—the one that Wikipedia quotes—is especially problematic. He writes:

 

“Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

Medoff disparages the evidence we have as “hearsay.” Is it?

 

Wikipedia explains the legal definition of ‘hearsay’:

 

“information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.”[11]

 

In US law there is a famous “hearsay rule,” which says that if en (sic) eyewitness cannot present his or her testimony in court, then another’s report of the supposed testimony is inadmissible.[11a] Medoff is turning this legal tradition into a historiographical principle in order to do away with the evidence from Wisliceny. Is this a proper maneuver?

 

A historian is not subject to the caution of a court of law, which must err on the side of presumption of innocence in order to safeguard a person’s rights. But even if a historian were Medoff’s reasoning does not apply. We have two independent testimonies before the Nuremberg Tribunal, by Andrej (Endre) Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner, about their wartime conversations with Wisliceny, the topic of which was Husseini’s key role in 1) the decision to exterminate all of the European Jews and, 2) the administration of the death-camp system with Adolf Eichmann. These two testimonies, by themselves, count as ‘hearsay.’ But are they inadmissible? Actually the hearsay rule has exceptions that a judge may invoke, and having two consistent and independent testimonies could favor such an exception. But this is not even the case. Both testimonies were corroborated by Wisliceny, whose “direct experience” of the relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is well established, since Wisliceny was Eichmann’s right-hand man. In other words, Wisliceny’s testimony is not hearsay; he is an eyewitness. Medoff is wrong.

 

So:

 

1)     we do have evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor;

 

2)     this evidence is not hearsay because it comes from Wisliceny; and

 

3)     given what we know about Husseini’s character, deeds, and timely arrival in Berlin, Wisliceny’s claims certainly do not conflict “with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

So every word in the Medoff passage that Wikipedia quotes is false.

We continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Bernard Lewis also called Wisliceny’s testimony into doubt: “There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.”[160]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

The full passage from Bernard Lewis’s work is the following:

 

“According to Wisliceny, the Mufti was a friend of Eichmann and had, in his company, gone incognito to visit the gas chamber at Auschwitz. Wisliceny even names the Mufti as being the ‘initiator’ of the policy of extermination. This was denied, both by Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961, and by the Mufti in a press conference at about the same time. There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside.” [12]

 

So Eichmann and Husseini deny it and this is enough for Lewis… If we apply his standards to any ordinary criminal investigation we will be forced to let the main suspect go the minute he himself and/or his alleged accomplice deny the charges. Presto! This will save a lot of unnecessary police work.

 

The same can be said for his curious insistence that without “independent documentary confirmation” the testimony of witnesses can be dispensed with. But, naturally, a great many things that happen in the world are not recorded in a document. Eyewitness testimony must be considered carefully, but saying that “there is no independent documentary confirmation” of a particular piece of testimony is not the same thing as producing good reasons to doubt it. And to say, in the absence of conflicting evidence, that our null hypothesis will be to consider as true the opposite of what was testified to, why that is simply absurd.

 

The above is obvious but Lewis’s last argument—“it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside”—will appeal to many as reasonable, so it deserves a more extended comment.

 

What Lewis is saying is that the Nazis decided on total extermination for reasons that were ‘endogenous’ to their ideological program. But though killing lots of Jews as part of a campaign of terror and to make lebensraum for deserving Aryan specimens on the Eastern front was certainly part of general Nazi policy, the ‘Final Solution,’ as pointed out above, was initially and for a long time a program of mass expulsion, and did not contemplate (yet) exterminating the entire European Jewish population. Getting to that point required some ‘exogenous’ prodding (“from outside”); it was not an ideological requirement.

 

Historian Thomas Marrus writes: “After the riots of Kristallnacht in November 1938, SS police boss Heydrich was ordered to accelerate emigration, and Jews were literally driven out of the country. The problem was, of course, that there was practically no place for them to go.”[13] The reason there was no place for them to go is that no country would receive them. As historian James Carroll points out:  “The same leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees. …Crucial to its building to a point of no return was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews…[14] Though one may argue that this was not really “indifference” on the part of Roosevelt et al. but a very special interest (in their doom).[15] The main point here is that, as historian Gunnar Paulsson points out: “Expulsion had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews, and had been abandoned largely for practical, not ideological, reasons” (my emphasis).[16]

 

The Nazis were right bastards. No disagreement. But they did need some encouragement to go that far. They needed to be told, first, that they would not get rid of any Jews by pushing them out to the ‘Free World.’ And then they needed to be told, by British creation Hajj Amin al Husseini, that neither could they push them out to ‘Palestine.’ Bernard Lewis is wrong.

 

Perhaps Wikipedia would like to try again with a new set of ‘supporting’ sources? We will be waiting to examine them.

 

[SlantRight Editor: There is more reading under the headings Readings Relevant to this Video” and “Footnotes and Further Reading”.]

_____________________________

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

____________________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

 

About HIR

 

Francisco Gil-White has a Masters in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a PhD in biological and cultural anthropology from UCLA. His PhD thesis work was in rural Western Mongolia, where he did 14 months of fieldwork studying the mutual ethnic perceptions of neighboring Torguud Mongol and Kazakh nomadic herders. Until June 2006, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania (he was fired for investigating the real aims of US foreign policy). His research is broadly concerned with the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for social learning and social perception and cognition. His main interests are the evolution of ethnic processes, with a special focus on racism, and particularly anti-Semitism; prestige processes; the evolution of language; the structure of narrative memory; the structure and interaction of media and political processes; the laws of history; Western geopolitics; and the political history of the West.

 

The story behind Historical and Investigative Research

 

WHAT OCCUPATION?


Eretz Israel map 2

Intro to ‘What Occupation?’

John R. Houk

© February 8, 2013

 

Westerners are beginning a resurgence of Jew-hatred which is being expressed today in the support of Islamic nations because most of the oil producing nations of the world is Muslim. The narrative of Muslim dominated nations is that Israel existence came to be at the expense of Muslim Arabs that lived there before European Jews began to immigrate back to the Land of their God-given heritage.

 

Thus Westerners – especially Europeans – are believing the lie that all economic woe is due to Muslim Jew-hatred thus the petroleum economy is a dagger to oil-blood that ultimately fuels the global economy. Muslims have been winning the propaganda war making the nation Israel – you have to use a magnifying glass to view Israel on a global map – the villain of all that ails the world. The most common lie today is that the Israeli government is on par with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Hitler successfully murdered twelve million people in a racist attempt to cleanse German dominated area of the gene pool that pollutes the so-called Aryan race of Germans. Nearly SIX MILLION of those ethnically cleansed people were European Jews. The propaganda is this miniscule Israel does not have the right to exist coupled with the bad logic that the Land Israel won back in 1967 is occupied land with those Muslims being treated like Hitler’s Jews.

 

The propaganda is a load pig oil and Efraim Karsh writing for Think-Israel has the factual statistics to prove it.

 

JRH 2/8/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

WHAT OCCUPATION?

 

By Efraim Karsh

November/December 2012

Alert sent: Feb 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Think-Israel

 

Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.

 

No term has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than “occupation.” For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel’s supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel’s allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.

 

For most Western observers, the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London’s Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled “Occupied Palestine.” That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian “right of return” that is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation” — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.

 

Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel’s actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today’s terrorist attacks were “what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people” — a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.

 

Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 “occupations.” “I come to you today with a heavy heart,” she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, “leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe].”

 

“In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population … On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.”

 

This original “occupation” — that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel — was later extended, in Ashrawi’s narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:

 

“Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.”

 

Taken together, the charges against Israel’s various “occupations” represent — and are plainly intended to be — a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.

 

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area’s inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.

 

Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League’s successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.

 

The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination — an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state’s midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today — namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).

 

As is well known, the implementation of the UN’s partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region’s Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

 

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, “it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan’s] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed.” A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that “the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt.”

 

The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of “land for peace” as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers — Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem” — a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

 

At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960’s — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. “Moderate” Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez al Assad openly referred to Palestine as “not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria”; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.

 

Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom’s economic, political, and social structures.

 

For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.

 

What, then, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most “varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution” ever devised by the human mind?

 

At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel’s control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat’s PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO’s support for Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980’s.

 

Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as “systematic oppression” is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this “occupation” did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel’s success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs’ “final round” with Israel.

 

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

 

Israel’s restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli “oppression.” At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

 

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

 

During the 1970’s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world — ahead of such “wonders” as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

 

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

 

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

 

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980’s, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990’s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.

 

All this, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel’s hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of pro-PLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: “It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don’t build arms factories with it.” Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.

 

Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel’s administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel’s counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little “armed resistance,” and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960’s, then from Lebanon.

 

In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO’s largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that “there is no difference between inside and outside.” But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO’s influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged.

 

But these things were not to be. By the mid1970’s, the PLO had made itself into the “sole representative of the Palestinian people,” and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960’s — well before the Six-Day war — to pursue its “revolution until victory,” that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.

 

By the mid-1990’s, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli “peace partner.” At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly.

 

But what did all this have to do with Israel’s “occupation”? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.

 

By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat’s abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank’s populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.

 

The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank’s overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank’s 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained “overriding responsibility for security.” Some two percent of the West Bank’s population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains “functional jurisdiction.”

 

In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.

 

If the stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo “peace process” but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent.

 

Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

 

Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu’s election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu’s three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres’s term.

 

There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment.

 

The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years.

 

Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat’s response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings — murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000.

 

In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that “peace” agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel’s most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place.

 

There are limits to Israel’s ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership.

 

It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians’ rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring (sic) Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

______________________

Efraim Karsh is a professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, and editor of the Middle East Quarterly published by the Middle East Forum. This article was published in the 114 No. 1 July-August 2002 issue of Commentary Magazine (www.commentary.com). The present reprint is taken from the Aish.com reprinting of August 2002, which is archived at http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48898917.html

_____________________

SlantRight Editor: Here are some excerpts from the Think-Israel homepage. I am not sure how often Think-Israel updates its homepage so I am posting some of the info here for posterity.

**********************

We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
  

Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
  

Doesn’t this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?

##########

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”   (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian “peoplehood” is a fraud; Read This  (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw).

###########

“It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed more than 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. Less than 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to appease the Arabs once again, another three quarters of that less than 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan.”   (Jack Berger, May 31, 2004.)

############

The total for all the 22 Arab League countries is 6,145,389 square miles (SM). By comparison, all 50 states of the United States have a total of 3,787,318 SM. Israel has 8,463 SM, about one-sixth of that of the State of Michigan. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Muslim but not Arab and are not included.
    

World Arab population: 300 million; World Jewish population: 13.6 million; Israel’s Jewish population: 5.4 million.  (Dr. Wilbert Simkovitz) 

 

http://dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/ apr04/0223.htmldehai.org/archives/ dehai_news_archive/apr04/0223.html [SlantRight Editor: I could not find a combination in which this link works. If you wish to play with it perhaps you can start HERE]

#############

“… during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people. They [Palestinian arabs] remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the “right of return” to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist.”  (Noam Bedein, Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.)

###############

Some 900,000 Jews left behind $300 billion in assets when they were forced to flee for their lives from the Arab countries in the 1940s. They hold deeds for five times Israel’s size.  (Independent Media Centre, Winnipeg)

##############

Re Israel’s irrevocable ownership of Israel, Golan, Samaria, Judea and Gaza: “Nothing that Israel’s legal system says can change the facts that: (1) the legal binding document is the Mandate of the League of Nations and (2) the obligations of the Mandate are valid in perpetuity.”  (Professor Julius Stone)

#############

“By 1920 the Ottoman Empire had exercised undisputed sovereignty over Palestine for 400 years. In Article 95 of the treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was transferred to England in trust for a national homeland for the jews. The local Arabs had never exercised sovereignty over Palestine and so they lost nothing. Their rights were fully protected by a provisio in the grant: ‘…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…’ The proviso has been fully observed by the Israelis. Since 1950 the Arabs have built some 261 new settlements in Judea and Samaria — more than twice as many as the Jews, but you never hear of them. They fill them with Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan and by the grace of God they become Palestinians. Allahu Akbar! The Arabs call Judea “the West Bank’ because they would look silly claiming that Jews are illegally living in Judea.”  (Comment by Wallace Brand on Martin Peretz “Narrative Dissonance” The New Republic, July 1, 2009)

 

Read More Quotes Here

 

###################

STEPS TO CARRY OUT THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

 

Allowing the Arabs and their European friends to set the agenda, Israel has pursued a useless peace policy, bending over backwards to persuade the Arabs to become genuine peace partners. It has brought them nothing but grief, ever more dead Israelis and more acts of terror against more of their citizens. The world hasn’t appreciated that Israel has jeopardized the safety of its own citizens to reduce harm to the Arabs. Instead, the world demands Israel do more “for peace” while asking nothing of the Arabs. How does Israel get back on the right track of making the safety of its own citizens its priority?

 

§  The first step is to understand that ALL of Mandated Palestine belongs to Israel and was authorized by the same international authority that gave the other 99.99% of the Middle East to the Arabs.

 

§  The second step is to recognize that the peace process is a scam to deprive Israel of its land. As Efraim Karsh points out, “Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza.”

 

§  The third is to stop going down the wrong road and, as Caroline Glick recommends, change current Israeli policy. Israel needs to stop being an enabler that gives the Arabs immunity while they work to destroy Israel.

 

§  More and more Israelis are considering annexing Samaria and Judea officially and putting all of the Territories under Israeli law. See “On Reclaiming Jewish Land” here, including Hausman’s article, “Reclaim Jewish Land; Reject The Two-State Solution” here.

 

§  Others, Think-Israel included, believe annexation is insufficient. Israel will sooner or later be confronted by a choice that can be simply stated this way: Keep The Land And Expel The Arabs — OR — Keep The Arabs And Lose The Land. Phrased thus, the solution becomes obvious. Just as the Jews were forced from the Arab countries, it is time for the second phase of this population exchange, moving the local Arabs to some part of the vast land area controlled by the Arabs. This would be an upgrade. They would have more space while living in the same environment, life style and culture they are accustomed to having. It would allow them — and this includes all the Arab refugees now scattered in the different Arab countries — the ability to govern themselves. Or carry on their way of death, but only against each other. Their choice.

 

This set of papers lay out the first steps of a policy based on reality. At the very least, it protects the character of the Jewish state.

#################

This is Additional Material on San Remo and Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine:

 

“The San Remo Mandate” here.

 

Interview with Howard Grief in Norway March 21, 2011 on “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under international Law.”

 
Part 1 is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zkjC7tNOrI

Part 2 is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_hM8kbfc

Another set of videos interviewing Howard Grief are at:

 
1. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=2

2. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=3

3. watch?v=ROumSVr7MFc&list=PLE3AB68BC6C75748F&index=4

 

Yoram Shifftan has written a series of articles on Israel’s ownership of Mandated Palestine by an irrevocable trust to the Jewish people. See e.g., here, here, and here. See also inter alia: Wallace Edward Brand, “Israeli Sovereignty over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria,” here; “A Landmark Work” by William Mehlman here; Michael C. Duke, “Jerusalem: Our Redeemable Right” here; Ted Belman, “Summary Of Israel’s Legal Rights To Judea And Samaria,” here.

 

In the box above, google san remo, league of nations, irrevocable trust, mandated palestine, Israel’s legal right for a more complete selection of relevant articles on Think-Israel.

 

 

 

 

And the USA & EU Support Palestinian State?


Hamas poster for the rallies in Judea and Samaria 12-2012

Hamas poster for the rallies in Judea and Samaria. The caption reads, “The [West] Bank renews its commitment and swears loyalty to the resistance (Ajnad Facebook page, December 15, 2012)

 

John R. Houk

© December 31, 2012

 

The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas is a subsidiary of the Radical Muslim organization Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas’ only reason for existing is to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

 

Thanks to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) here are some excerpts from the Hamas charter that demonstrates this Jew-Hatred:

 

Anti-Semitism in the Hamas Charter: Selected Excerpts

Posted: May 13, 2011

 

Preamble

 

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.

 

Article Seven:

 

 

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

 

 

 

Article Twenty-Eight:

 

 

We should not forget to remind every Muslim that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that “Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.”
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. “May the cowards never sleep.”

 

Article Thirty-Two:

 

World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

 

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another.

 

I focused on actual threats to the lives of Jewish people and to the nation of Israel. Although Jews often differentiate between Zionism and Judaism, the Hamas charter reference of Zionism or Zionist is referring to the nation of Israel.

 

If you read the ADL excerpts of the Hamas charter in its entire post you there is a great interest in Hamas hating the West. Civic organizations that Americans take for granted are viewed by Hamas as purveyors of immorality to corrupt Muslims:

 

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. (Ibid.)

 

Just so I am clear, Hamas is a Jew-Hating and Western-hating (especially Americans and American Christians) organization committed to murdering people in their cause to steal the Jewish Homeland from Jewish people. I say steal because there has never been a nation of Muslim-Arabs that belonged to culture of Palestine. The term “Palestine” did not really exist as a location in modern history until after WWI when the European victors carved up the Arab portion of the defeated Ottoman Empire (present day Turkey). The British managed a League of Nations Mandate called Palestine which was specifically carved out for persecuted Jews to move back to the Land their ancestors were expelled from by Romans. In fact the majority of Arabs that live in the areas of Judea-Samaria and Gaza are descendants of Arabs that were migrant workers coming to work for Jews that had turned neglected land back into agriculturally producing land.

 

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are essentially two separate entities. Hamas governs Gaza and the PA governs the Arab population of Judea-Samaria (aka the West Bank as termed by Jordan after its 1948 conquest of Jewish land). Essentially the PA is made up of the Arab League created Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO was created by the Arab League with the specific purpose of giving Muslim Arab nations a reason to invade Israel to destroy it and kill Jews.

 

In the midst of all this hatred perpetrated by Arabs that call themselves Palestinians, the USA and the EU insist on turning Judea-Samaria and Gaza into a Palestinian State. The PA lies to the West about peaceful intentions while their schools and media teach Jew-Hatred constantly reinforce that someday there will be no Israel.

 

The Western media and especially the American media participate in abject failure in informing their public of the nefarious designs of the leadership of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. For instance has anyone heard during the Christmas season 2012 that the PA allowed Hamas to stage rallies celebrating their anniversary of existence. Part of that celebration is memorializing Islamic terrorists that committed homicide by via suicide explosions. These murderers are celebrated as heroic martyrs that they call shaheeds.

 

Hamas Rally Ramallah 12-2012

 

This despicable to be a party to setting up a sovereign nation that has only one purpose to exist; viz., destroy Israel and kill Jews.

 

JRH 12/31/12

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Hamas held mass rallies throughout Judea and Samaria to mark the 25th anniversary of its founding.

 

Terrorism-info

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Issued on: 18/12/2012

 

Overview

 

1. The Palestinian Authority recently allowed Hamas operatives in Judea and Samaria to hold mass public events to mark the 25th anniversary of the movement’s founding. They were held in the main cities and on university campuses in Judea and Samaria, primarily in Nablus, Hebron, Qalqiliya and Tulkarm. Thousands of Palestinians participated, a clear demonstration of Hamas’ power in Judea and Samaria after four years in which the Palestinian Authority forbade or limited public Hamas activities. The PA’s security services oversaw the rallies and prevented them from turning into violent confrontations with the IDF.

 

2. The rallies emphasized Hamas’ narrative of “victory” in Operation Pillar of Defense. Demonstrators carried models of rockets and listened to speeches given by Hamas activists in Judea and Samaria and from the Gaza Strip. The speeches, especially those by Hamas activists and operatives in the Gaza Strip, stressed the importance of the path of terrorism (jihad and the so-called “resistance”) as the only way to restore the Palestinians’ “full rights” (i.e., the destruction of the State of Israel). Senior Hamas figures called for strengthening the “resistance” in Judea and Samaria, claiming that all local, regional and international conditions were ripe for a third intifada, which would be “hard and decisive.”[1]

 

3. Providing the unusual authorization for Hamas to hold mass rallies in Judea and Samaria is part of the PA’s current policy of redefining the limits placed on its political rivals and promoting an atmosphere of reconciliation.[2] It is a trend which has continued for the past year and a half, especially since the reconciliation agreement (signed in May 2011) and the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal (October 2011). Since then Hamas has significantly increased its public presence in Judea and Samaria, especially on issues where a Palestinian consensus is perceived to exist (such as the struggle of the Palestinian terrorist operatives imprisoned in Israeli jails). At the same time the PA allows the Hamas media to operate, and they cover various events through the prism of Hamas, inciting the local populace to terrorism and goading Palestinians to revolt against Israel. The most prominent media with correspondents on the ground in Judea and Samaria are Al-Aqsa TV, which broadcasts from the Gaza Strip, and Al-Quds TV, which broadcasts from Beirut.

 

4. In our assessment the Palestinian Authority gave Hamas permission to hold mass rallies because it understood that given the atmosphere prevailing in the Arab world in general and on the Palestinian street in particular, it would be hard to prevent such rallies from being held. Therefore, the PA considered it best to allow the local residents let off steam under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority and its security services. In addition, permission may have been given as a signal to Israel and the international community as to the possible consequences of a political freeze and the need to strengthen the PA.

 

5. The mass participation of the Palestinian population in the rallies reflects, in our assessment, extensive support for Hamas in Judea and Samaria.[3] The support for Hamas and its accompanying incitement to terrorism are liable to contribute to an increase in violence in Judea and Samaria, even if the PA can be expected to prevent the situation from getting out of control. Violence in Judea and Samaria, so far limited to various types of “popular” activities (throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and attacking IDF soldiers), has risen since Operation Pillar of Defense, and especially since the upgrading of the PA’s status in the UN.

 

Events Organized by Hamas to Mark the Anniversary of Its Founding

 

Overview

 

6. Hamas marked the 25th anniversary of its founding with a series of mass rallies and demonstrations throughout Judea and Samaria. The main rallies were held in the large cities, among them Nablus, Hebron, Ramallah, Qalqiliya and Tulkarm. They stressed the “victory” of the Palestinian “resistance” during Operation Pillar of Defense. The demonstrators carried models of Hamas-produced M75 rockets fired into central Israel which symbolized the “resistance” and “victory.” Senior figures from Hamas and the other terrorist organizations participated in the rallies. Some of the speakers, especially Hamas activists from the Gaza Strip who spoke by telephone, praised of the right to “resistance” and jihad. The rallies were held under the supervision of the PA’s security services, which prevented them from turning into confrontations with the IDF.

 

Events in Hebron

 

7. A mass rally was held in Hebron, attended by Aziz Dweik, Hamas activist and chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), and representatives from the local Palestinian organizations. Ismail Haniya greeted the participants in a telephone conversation from the Gaza Strip. Aziz Dweik appealed to Mahmoud Abbas to end the internal Palestinian schism, to stop the so-called “political detentions” in Judea and Samaria and to release Hamas prisoners in PA jails (Safa News Agency, December 14, 2012). Palestinian police stationed at a distance followed the rally and prevented friction with IDF forces (Ajnad Facebook page, December 14, 2012).

Hamas Rally at the Palestine Polytechnic University in Hebron

 

8. On December 18 Hamas held a rally at the Palestine Polytechnic University (PPU) in Hebron. Hundreds of Hamas-flag waving students participated. They held a military display in which they wore uniforms and carried models of rockets. Aziz Dweik, Hamas chairman of the PLC, attended, as did other Hamas Council member, representatives of the university administration, and members of the families of Palestinian terrorist operatives who had been imprisoned or killed.

 

9. Aziz Dweik gave a speech in which he blessed the “shaheeds” who were PPU graduates, saying that “the path of Hamas is the path of the victory of the truth over the lie, the victory of the resistance over the occupation and its collaborators.” Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, gave a speech by telephone in which he said that “Hamas has written the path to liberation in blood and resistance, and from the beginning of the operation [Operation Pillar of Defense] had ensured victory” (Filastin al-‘Aan, December 18, 2012).

 

Events in Nablus

 

10. On December 13 a mass rally was held in the center of Nablus. After the afternoon prayer at the Al-Nasr mosque, participants gathered in Al-Shuhadaa Square in the center of the city, where the rally was held. It was attended by representatives from the PLC, the governor of the Nablus district and other prominent public figures (Safa News Agency, December 13, 2012). Among the participants was Amin Maqboul, secretary of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.

 

11. A telephone-transmitted speech was made by Husam Badran, a terrorist operative who had been released from jail and deported to the Gaza Strip. He said that “resistance” [i.e., terrorism and violence] was the only way to restore the rights of the Palestinian people and the only way to achieve national unity. Amin Maqboul also spoke, praising Hamas and the “hands which brought victory in Operation Pillar of Defense” (Safa News Agency, December 13, 2012).

 

12. According to Adnan al-Dhmeiri, spokesman for the security services of the Palestinian Authority, the district government had authorized Hamas to hold the rally. He claimed the reason was the “positive atmosphere and victory of all the organizations over Israeli aggression in Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas’ achievement in the UN” (Ma’an News Agency, December 10, 2012).

Ramallah

 

Tulkarm

 

13. The rally in Tulkarm took place on December 14. Demonstrators waved Hamas and Palestinian flags and chanted slogans in favor of “resistance.” A speech was given by Hassan Khraisheh, Hamas-affiliated deputy speaker of the PLC. He said that the Palestinian people wanted to unite under the banner of the resistance (Ajnad News, December 14, 2012).

 

Qalqiliya

 

14. The rally in Qalqiliya was held on December 15. Demonstrators chanted slogans in support of Hamas and its military-terrorist wing in light of Operation Pillar of Defense, and called for national Palestinian unity. A speech was given by Nasser Abd al-Jawad, a Hamas-faction member of the PLC, in which he said that Hamas’ presence in Judea and Samaria was alive and well despite the difficulties it had encountered in recent years. Speaking via telephone, Sheikh Talal al-Baz, a Hamas terrorist operative released from an Israeli jail and today living in Qatar, stressed Hamas’ adherence to the idea of jihad and “resistance” [i.e., terrorism] until the so-called “liberation” of Palestine (Alresala.net website, December 15, 2012).

 

Hamas Exhibition at Beir Zeit University

 

15. On December 10, before the rallies were held, the Islamic block at Beir Zeit University marked the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas with a series of events. Students marched across the campus holding Hamas flags and signs in support of Hamas, as well as models of rockets and pictures of senior Hamas figures and prisoners. After the march a rally was held with the theme “the path to victory.” It was attended by family members of Palestinians who had been killed, prisoners who had been released and Hamas-faction members of the PLC, among them Jamal al Tawil, Ahmed Attoun and Muhammad Abu Tir. Hama arch-terrorist Yahya Ayash’s mother spoke at the rally, as did the mother of suicide bomber Ihab Abu Salim (Paltoday and Safa News Agency, December 10, 2012).

 

16. There was also an exhibition on campus to celebrate Hamas’ so-called “victory” in Operation Pillar of Defense. It was held at the entrance to the department of literature and featured pictures and models of M75 rockets (medium-range rockets manufactured in the Gaza Strip with Iranian technology). There were pictures of Ahmed al-Jaabari and other terrorist operatives who had been killed during the operation. The entrance to the exhibition was carpeted with a large Israeli flag for visitors to walk on (Safa News Agency and Filastin al-‘Aan, December 4 and 5, 2012).

 

Full Document in PDF Format

 

NOTES:

 

[1] For example, Yusuf Rizqa, Ismail Haniya’s political advisor, has said that third intifada against the [Israeli] “occupation” in the West Bank was very close (Alresala.net website, December 15, 2012). Saleh al-Arouri, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, said that after the “victory” in the Gaza Strip the “resistance” in the West Bank had to be strengthened, construction in the settlements had to be ended and Israel had to be stopped (Al-Aqsa TV, December 13, 2012).

 

[2] The trend has been manifested by the PA’s allowing hostile organizations and groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Hamas student faction and the Liberation Party (Harb al-Tahrir) to hold rallies.

 

[3] One indication of sympathy for Hamas in Judea and Samaria is the outcome of a public opinion poll taken by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research directed by Khalil Shqaqi. The survey was conducted between December 13 and 15, 2012, and its results indicated increasing public support for Ismail Haniya and diminishing support for Mahmoud Abbas. According to the survey, if elections for the presidency were held in the Palestinian Authority today, 48% would vote for Ismail Haniya, as opposed to 45% for Mahmoud Abbas.

______________________________

And the USA & EU Support Palestinian State?

John R. Houk

© December 31, 2012

___________________________

Hamas held mass rallies throughout Judea and Samaria to mark the 25th anniversary of its founding.

 

Terrorism-Info homepage