Doc's Talk: Fatah/PLO Ideology: The Obstacle to Peace

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Fatah/PLO Ideology: The Obstacle to Peace

Yisrael Ne'eman

Once we all get past the latest Wikileaks scandal and find out what the Americans really think of us Israel will once again face the continuing demand for a settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Whether this comes to resolution or not is often thought to be the determining factor concerning the resumption of peace talks between the Netanyahu government and the Palestinian Authority. While these are preliminaries, much greater issues remain to be resolved whether they be borders, security, Jerusalem or the Palestinian demand for refugee return. But before diving into such weighty issues there is a fundamental misunderstanding many outsiders have as concerns not only Israel, but the Jewish People - emanating from the Palestinian side.The crucial question facing Israeli policy makers when attempting to arrive at conflict resolution with the Palestinians is "What does the other side truly want in a Permanent Status Agreement?" Supposedly the Abbas/Fayyad government wants a two-state solution. However what is the quality of that solution in principle? As we know the Netanyahu government has demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the national home or nation state of the Jewish People, something which even the pro-West secular Fatah led PA government in Ramallah has refused to accept. But why should the supposedly pro-Western American sponsored West Bank Palestinian State to be reject the agreed upon national basis of the two- state solution as presented by the UN Partition Plan in 1947, exactly 63 years ago?

Firstly the UN Resolution 181 was roundly rejected by all the Arab states and the Palestinians at the time. Secondly and more important it does not fit into the secular Palestinian Arab world view and understanding of eternal total Arab dominance of the Middle East. The concept of the totality of the Arab domain is contained in Fatah's Palestine National Charter (PNC)– that same document that PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat (died 2004) promised to amend in 1998 at the urging of then US Pres. Bill Clinton. It was part of the 1998 Wye Accords signed by Netanyahu during his first term (1996 – 1999). Arafat was to ensure that all references or euphemisms implying Israel's destruction were to be removed. This was never done and a year and a half later Arafat responded with the 2000 – 2004 Low Intensity Conflict/Terror Offensive designed to draw in other Arab combatants. The LIC/TO violent option failed as did Arafat's scheme for a wider conflict.

Today and yesteryear's failings are in particular (but not only) rooted in the offending clauses of the PNC – Articles 19, 20 and 21 quoted below with commentary:

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

* This is the Palestinian Arab "secularization" of the absolutist concept of the holy "waqf" or endowed lands as understood in Islam and in particular the policy pursued by Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood). The Palestinian People have a "natural right" to their homeland regardless as to whether the same land has proven claims by another people, in this case the Jews who pre-date the Muslim Arab invasion of 638 CE. The UN decided to split Palestine, recognizing both national claims as legitimate. Fatah uses the "waqf" definition in the guise of secular nationalism while determining that Israel (Jewish nationalism) is "inconsistent with the principles" of the UN Charter when confronting the national "right to self-determination". If this was truly the case, then why would the UN violate its own Charter, not only voting for the two-state solution but granting Israel membership a year later? The Palestinians attribute to themselves primordial God (Allah) given intrinsic rights overriding UN Resolution 181, the international recognition of Jewish nationalism and the Jews unbreakable connection to their Biblical homeland.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

* Any international determination, whether the Balfour Declaration (Britain) or the Palestine Mandate (the League of Nations), both of which only spoke of a Jewish National Home and not even a state are "null and void". Furthermore the Palestinian Arabs take upon themselves the right and the obligation to eradicate Jewish history and religious memory, one which determines the Land of Israel (or "Palestine" of much later years) as the homeland of the Jewish People. Secular Palestinian Arabs made themselves the absolute judge of the Jewish past and belief system, deeming it null and void thereby relegating Jewish memory to either the trash heap of history (as done by such Christian historians/antisemites of the Arnold Toynbee type) or better yet these same Fatah intellectuals are dictating the Jewish past to a vacuum of emptiness, this fate being akin to a collective religious and cultural death.

The Jewish People may retain physical existence, but it is devoid of Jewish content. What is allowed to remain appears to be a certain general ethical monotheism obliterated of all memory. Fatah employs its own secular interpretation of the Islamic Hamas dhimmi oppressed second class status upon the Jewish People world wide. As pointed out by Bat Ye'or in her book Dhimmitude, eradication of both Jewish and Christian memory by Islam over the centuries guaranteed Muslim sovereignty and an Islamic unilateral narrative over these two "tolerated" religions. The secular Fatah/PLO includes a minority of Christians who secularize "replacement theology" when addressing the Jews while Muslims enforce a secularized disinheritance of the Jews for rejecting Arab (Muslim) dominance. When taken in a religious sense this is akin to the Jewish rejection of the Prophet Mohammed and his message. To become part of the only legal national entity in his own homeland a Jew must become a Palestinian Arab nationalist. This is parallel to the centuries old Muslim demand for the disinherited Jews - conversion to Islam.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

* The Palestinian Arab People believe in war as the only solution to the conflict against Jewish nationalism (Zionism) since they are 100% in the right, the Jews having no legitimacy as a national entity or a people with a homeland. This revolution is akin to the Islamic understanding of holy war or Jihad – which by definition is all consuming and total in its world scope for Islamic dominance. When applied as a localized Palestinian nationalism the euphemisms of "revolution" through armed violence to obtain "total liberation" add up to a secularization of the Jihadist concept. Furthermore, "all proposals" falling short of secular Jihadist revolutionary liberation are "reject[ed]" including international attempts at peace making. The only solution acceptable to the Palestinian Arab People is a non-compromising total victory over the non-People, the Jews.

Such "secular" Fatah/PLO thinking parallels the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinian Hamas in its demand for total victory. Specifically the PNC expresses positions as are found in the Hamas Covenant - Articles 11, 13 and 32.

The first step in achieving the two-state solution is a full recognition of the Jewish rights to the Land of Israel. One cannot adhere to the Palestine National Charter and advocate peace with the Jewish nation state simultaneously. Although it appears that Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad would accept peace with the Jewish State it is not clear whether PA President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) holds similar views. Without amending the Charter Palestinians are living a contradiction in regards to engaging in war and peace. To make peace while the PNC remains unchanged theoretically turns peace into a tactic whereby Israel relinquishes land as a first step in an overall war against the Jewish State to obtain a total Palestinian victory – the annihilation of Israel.

So what appears to be the Palestinian game plan from the Fatah perspective? Serious military action is out of the question, certainly for the foreseeable future. Hence action on the civilian front becomes the answer. This secular Fatah/PLO Palestinian perspective will be dealt with in the next article.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"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."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"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."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk