PA President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations 311 (R).
(photo credit: REUTERS/Chip East)
During the fiasco over the Palestinian Authority’s all-out push at the UN in September for a unilaterally forged Palestinian state, the implausible morphed into the incomprehensible. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon eloquently illustrated how far off the table reality had fallen when he admonished Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He told him to “act with restraint” and invoke “wisdom” regarding the Palestinian bid to begin, essentially, the destruction of Israel.
Others joined the fray. They insisted Israel forfeit “occupied” land it allegedly swiped from the Palestinians and now rules (so they claim) with apartheid-like oppression. Israel must be prepared, they insisted, to make significant concessions, with no evidence the Palestinian Authority (PA) will reciprocate.
All of America’s fumbling efforts, along with those of a few weak-kneed Europeans, to cajole PA leader Mahmoud Abbas into thinking twice before going it alone were slapped down. Interestingly, the insult didn’t seem to ruffle a feather of indignation among the countries (chief of which is the United States) that annually pour billions of dollars into the PA’s ill-managed coffers.
Why would Abbas—former lieutenant of Yasser Arafat, the late terrorist leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—eschew negotiations in favor of a course that may well lead to war? It doesn’t make sense—unless one realizes that, in essentials, Abbas is an unreconstructed PLO devotee. The perceived difference between his persona and Arafat’s is more one of image and style rather than substance.
His theatrical performance at the UN followed to the letter the Arab position at the Khartoum Summit after Israel’s stunning victories over the Arabs in the 1967 Six-Day War: “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.”
Furthermore, later in Ramallah, the PA chairman said his hopes were for a Palestinian "Arab Spring" uprising against Israel. Keeping in mind that the Arab Spring revolution was about regime change, it would be difficult to misinterpret his meaning.
Then there is the matter of a return to talks after recognition of the legitimacy of a Palestinian state using the 1948 Armistice lines as a starting point followed by some future land swaps - an idea endorsed by the US, Western consorts, and the Saudis among others.
Given the Palestinians’ implacable intransigence when it comes to concessions, who could ever take seriously the idea that PA representatives would ever entertain the thought of conceding a single grain of sand to Israel in exchange for a secure peace? In this arena of the undefined, Netanyahu’s statement that the UN is the “theater of the absurd” sounds like an accurate appraisal of the entire exercise.
Unfortunately, Western societies fail to evaluate substance and underlying ideology. Instead, they fall for altered images and readjusted externals that give the illusion of change. But make no mistake: behind the smiles, wardrobe makeovers, and retooled rhetoric lies the same old stuff.No recognition ever of the right of a Jewish state to exist.
A massive “return” of Palestinian “refugees” to Israel would do in a few short years what Arab armies could not do in a succession of wars. If you want proof, check out Anne Bayefsky’s exposé
on the logo of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. The logo displays the flag of “Palestine” with an image of the proposed country stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. No Israel anywhere. Why? Because according to the plan, Israel will no longer exist.
Judenrein Bounces BackJudenrein
, a German word
meaning “clean of Jews,” was thought by most to have hit the dustbin
when Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich fell to the allies in 1945.
American attorney Alan Dershowitz recently expounded
on the duplicity of the PA’s claim that it would create a “secular
democratic state.” The draft constitution for a state of Palestine, he
said, declares, “Islam is the official religion in Palestine”; and
Sharia law will be the “major source of legislation.”
Furthermore, the Muslim state would prohibit Jewish people from becoming
citizens, owning land, or even from living there. When the Palestinian
ambassador to the United States was asked whether “any Jew who is inside
the borders of Palestine will have to leave,” his answer was,
All this sounds exceedingly familiar. When the Jordanians used military
force to occupy Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem in
1948, they played by the same rules. In defiance of UN entreaties, they
systematically destroyed 58 Jewish synagogues; removed 38,000 Jewish
tombstones from the Mount of Olives, which they then used to pave roads
and floor latrines; and barred Jewish access to the Western Wall and
Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Jerusalem became a divided city until
the Israelis liberated it during the 1967 Six-Day War.
What makes people believe that an Islamist Palestinian state—which
boasts the added dimension of wanting world domination—would be a
better, more benevolent neighbor to a Jewish state than were the
Jordanians?Name of the Game: Win It All
Clearly, Palestinians and Islamist radicals throughout the region
believe their time has come and that they are now positioned to take it
all. We hear as much in their not-so-veiled threats that rejecting the
imposition on Israel of a Palestinian state will likely mean war. This
calculated tactic is designed to create a panic response among weak
leaders who would rather capitulate than fight to ensure security and
stability. Like it or not, sometimes you have to fight; and this is a
battle we can ill afford to lose.The writer is executive editor for The Friends of Israel.