Doc's Talk: The Arab Supremacist Islamist ‘State’ of ‘Palestine’

Monday, December 03, 2012

The Arab Supremacist Islamist ‘State’ of ‘Palestine’

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas came to New York for the second time in four months to present the Palestinian case for statehood in person to the United Nations General Assembly. He basked in the glory of thunderous standing ovations, which both preceded and followed his speech. Thousands of miles from Gaza and Ramallah, Abbas was enjoying his own version of a Turtle Bay “New York State of Mind.”
On November 29, 2012, the 65th anniversary of the General Assembly’s 1947 resolution recommending partition of what remained of the British Palestinian Mandate after the Palestinian-majority state of Jordan had already been carved out, Abbas called upon the General Assembly to complete the two state solution envisioned in 1947. He was petitioning the 193 UN member states for a new resolution that issues “a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.”

“Sixty-five years later and on the same day, which your esteemed body has designated as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” Abbas said, “the General Assembly stands before a moral duty, which it must not hesitate to undertake, and stands before a historic duty, which cannot endure further delay, and before a practical duty to salvage the chances for peace, which is urgent and cannot be postponed.”

Abbas got his wish. With 138 UN member states in favor to 9 against and 41 abstentions, the General Assembly adopted the legally non-binding resolution to elevate the Palestinians’ status from observer entity to observer non-member state. The very next day Palestinians were proudly displaying their new nameplate – the “State of Palestine” – on the table beside their seat in the morally bankrupt Hall of Mirrors that the UN General Assembly has become.

It is fitting that the racist Arab Muslim regime of Sudan, charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) with genocide and other crimes against humanity, submitted the resolution and vouched for the bona fides of the Palestinian claim to recognition as a legitimate state. Sudan is returning a favor. Abbas, after all, has in the past praised the ICC-indicted genocider, Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir.

“We are with Sudan,” said Abbas when asked during his 2009 visit with Bashir in Khartoum about the Palestinian position on the ICC’s warrant for arrest issued against al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur. Abbas added, “We are with the president. We support Sudanese unity and entirely agree with Sudan’s position.”
After Abbas concluded his speech last Thursday and took congratulations from many members of his rapt UN audience, Daff-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, Sudan’s UN Ambassador, formally submitted the resolution, titled “Status of Palestine in the United Nations” (document A/67/L.28) for a vote.

In remarks to the press after the voting was concluded and the resolution passed, Sudan’s UN Ambassador said it was “bizarre” for supporters of the International Criminal Court to oppose the Palestinians using the vote as leverage to bring their allegations of war crimes against Israel in the ICC. This is the same Ambassador Ali Osman who had accused the International Criminal Court prosecutor of “terrorist” tactics in investigating the Sudanese Arab regime’s ethnic cleansing, concentration camps for non-Arabs the ICC prosecutor likened to “a gigantic Auschwitz” and murders of non-Arab people living in Darfur that reportedly cost the lives of more than 300,000 people since 2003.

Abbas decided to end-run negotiations with Israel and raise false hopes among the Palestinian people, in order to use the General Assembly’s recognition of its statehood as leverage for lawfare purposes in bringing war crime charges against Israel at the ICC.
The General Assembly became an accomplice to Abbas’s sleight of hand. Beginning in 1977, as Abbas alluded to in his speech, the United Nations has sponsored the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29th, the date in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved its partition Resolution 181 (II). Abbas invoked the partition resolution, which the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries once so vehemently rejected, in his speech last Thursday. However, he never once acknowledged Israel’s right to exist within any borders in the region as a Jewish state, even though Resolution 181 (II) used the expression “Jewish State” twenty-three times, when it advocated the creation of “two states in Palestine, a Jewish one and an Arab one.” By going along with Abbas’s cherry picking of the partition resolution, the General Assembly ratified the Palestinian victimhood narrative in which they have only rights but no responsibilities.

Abbas claimed in his speech that he came to the General Assembly “to protect the possibilities and the foundations of a just peace that is deeply hoped for in our region.” But he laid down unconditional demands that he knows Israel cannot ever accept for its own security, particularly after the terrorist attacks it has experienced following its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 to give peace a chance.

Far from opening doors to genuine negotiations, Abbas’s speech was replete with the usual Palestinian blood libel, accusing Israel of “racism,” “apartheid,” “brute force” and “war crimes.” Abbas falsely characterized Israel’s very measured response to the Islamist jihadists’ unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civilians launched from Gaza as “aggression against our people in the Gaza Strip.”

Finally, Abbas lied to the General Assembly and to his own people about what kind of society an independent Palestinian state is likely to be. He said that “we reaffirm that Palestine will always adhere to and respect the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations and international humanitarian law, uphold equality, guarantee civil liberties, uphold the rule of law, promote democracy and pluralism, and uphold and protect the rights of women.”

Abbas’s Palestinian Authority does not control the lawless, Islamic fundamentalist Gaza Strip, a fatal flaw in the logic for a Palestinian state at this time but which also relieves him of responsibility for what is presently going on there under Hamas’s control. However, the West Bank territory under Palestinian Authority control does not come close to Abbas’s representation of a pluralistic democracy that protects the rights of women.
According to the Social Institutions and Gender Index launched by the OECD Development Centre, laws in the West Bank “contain discriminatory provisions in the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance. Women cannot marry without permission from their closest male relative on the paternal side. Polygamy is legally accepted in the Palestinian Authority, in accordance with Islamic law.”

• Article 1: “This constitution is based on the will of the Arab Palestinian people. It shall be approved democratically.”
• Article 3: “The Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nations.”
• Article 6: “Islam shall be the official religion of the state.”
• Article 10: “Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people.”
The draft Palestinian constitution also implies that the Palestinians’ claim of “right of return” to their homes in pre-1967 Israel is not negotiable. Article 32 states: “The right of the Palestinian refugee to return to his home and the original home of his ancestors is a natural right which cannot expire. Its exercise may not be delegated nor surrendered.”
Abbas’s UN maneuver was intended to gain the endorsement of the international community for the Palestinian demand that Israel retreat to the pre-1967 borders and turn over Old Jerusalem (which they call East Jerusalem and claim as their capital) to Palestinian sovereignty. They also continue to insist on the so-called right of return that would, if implemented, destroy the Jewish state without the necessity of Hamas’s missiles.
In response, Israel decided last Friday that it had enough of the Palestinians’ gaming of a UN system stacked against Israel. It announced that it was proceeding with zoning and planning preparation for a 4.6 square mile area near Jerusalem known as E-1, which can serve to buffer Jerusalem from incursions from the West Bank should the Palestinians get the state they are seeking.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the E1 announcement. “Should the E-1 settlement be constructed,” he said, “it would represent an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution.”

Instead of acting on cue with a Pavlovian criticism of Israel, the Secretary General should tell the Palestinians to stop playing games and get serious by resuming negotiations with Israel without conditions. The Israelis have not committed to the actual construction of E-1. However, if the Palestinians do not give up their play-acting at statehood via the UN and their unreasonable, non-negotiable claims, such as to Jerusalem, that have no historical or moral foundation, Israel will have to play whatever cards it has available.

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