StatCounter

Showing posts with label Yasser Arafat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yasser Arafat. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Long-Hidden Details Reveal Cruelty of 1972 Munich Attackers per NYTimes.com

'Among the most jarring details are these: The Israeli Olympic team members were beaten and, in at least one case, castrated.

"What they did is that they cut off his genitals through his underwear and abused him," Ms. Romano said of her husband, Yossef. Her voice rose.

"Can you imagine the nine others sitting around tied up?" she continued, speaking in Hebrew through a translator. "They watched this."'
But not on the BBC where such matters are as nothing compared to trying to get another Conservative party scalp. 

Post Script:
The Mahmoud Abbas and Yaser Arafat links:

Abu Daoud was allowed safe passage through Israel in 1996 so he could attend a PLO meeting convened in the Gaza Strip for the purpose of rescinding an article in its charter that called for Israel's eradication.[11] In his autobiography, From Jerusalem to Munich, first published in France in 1999, and later in a written interview with Sports Illustrated,[77] Abu Daoud wrote that funds for Munich were provided by Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the PLO since 11 November 2004 and President of the Palestinian National Authority since 15 January 2005.[78]
Though he claims he didn't know what the money was being spent for, longtime Fatah official Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, was responsible for the financing of the Munich attack.[79]
Abu Daoud believes that if the Israelis knew that Mahmoud Abbas was the financier of the operation, the 1993 Oslo Accords would not have been achieved, during which Mahmoud Abbas was seen in photo ops at the White House.[77]
Abu Daoud, who lived with his wife on a pension provided by the Palestinian Authority, said that "the Munich operation had the endorsement of Arafat," although Arafat was not involved in conceiving or implementing the attack." In his autobiography, Abu Daoud writes that Arafat saw the team off on the mission with the words "God protect you."[80]

Those links make it 100% certain that the BBC will ignore this story as they can't allow anything that is critical of their beloved Palestinians to see the light of day.

Wednesday, 22 October 2014

Why a two state solution is not a possible solution to the Israeli vs 'Palestinians' conflict



Pat Condell pretty much nailing it there.


But in case you need some proof, here's Fatah leader Abbas Zaki explaining Fatah policy on Israel very clearly in 2011...



Fatah leader Abbas Zaki speaks on Palestinian Authority television about "the great goal," referring to the goal of destroying Israel. He explains that it is impossible to achieve the "goal in one stroke," but that it would be "great" if Israel were "remove[d] from existence." He goes on to explain that this is not "a [stated] policy" and "you can't say it to the world."

This is a clear of example of the duplicity of PA leaders, who adhere to one position when speaking to foreign audiences, claiming to be seeking peace, but uphold a different position when speaking in Arabic, denying Israel's right to exist and educating the Palestinian people for continued conflict. This video indicates that Fatah may not intend to seriously work towards peace.

Transcipt:
"The agreement is based on the borders of June 4. While the agreement is on the borders of June 4, the President [Mahmoud Abbas] understands, we understand, and everyone knows that it is impossible to realize the inspiring idea, or the great goal in one stroke. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, if Israel uproots the settlements, 650,000 settlers, if Israel removes the (security) fence - what will be with Israel? Israel will come to an end. If I say that I want to remove it from existence, this will be great, great, [but] it is hard. This is not a [stated] policy. You can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."
[Al-Jazeera, Sept. 23, 2011]


Going back a little through history there are plenty of example of Palestinian leaders exposing their true intentions and admissions but the Western media, especially the BBC, are so anti-Israel that they just won't report such admissions.

How about the PLO leader Yasser Arafat, speaking on Jordanian TV on the same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993:

“Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”
 Could that be any clearer? Have the BBC ever reported that admission?


 Even further back, on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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.'

Any room for doubt? No, but the BBC will continue to support the 'Palestinian' lies because the BBC is institutionally anti-Israel.

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

The one hundred and eighty ninth weekly "No shit Sherlock award" - 'Arafat was lying when he condemned terror against Israel'

'Late PA head’s bodyguard says Egypt pressed him to denounce attacks; adds Islamic law permits lying in politics'
More here http://www.timesofisrael.com/arafat-was-lying-when-he-condemned-terror-against-israel/ but never on the BBC who wouldn't dream of mentioning the Islamic concept of taqqiya. 

Arab leader lie, including Yasser Arafat - "No shit, Sherlock"

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

An interview from. The BBC's Arabic Service that the BBC English language service will 100% not report = Arafat lied when he condemned suicide bombings

'Muhammad Al-Daya, longtime bodyguard of Yasser Arafat, said in a recent TV interview that Arafat used to lie when he denounced bombings in Israel. Arafat "would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: 'I am against the killing of civilians.' But that wasn’t true," said Al-Daya, in a BBC Arabic interview which aired on April 3, 2014.'
More here http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/arafats-bodyguard-arafat-lied-when-he.html but definitely not on the anti Israel BBC where any Palestinian leader is above criticism.

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Palestinian people do not exist

I have posted articles quoting Zahir Muhsein and Yasser Arafat's words previously. But the truth is always worth repeating, especially if it forces the hate filled like @DD1958 to face up to the truth.
More here http://mobile.wnd.com/2002/07/14501/

'Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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.
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? It’s even more specific than Golda Meir’s statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.

In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here’s what he said: “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”

No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.'

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Palestine for the Palestinians, unless Palestine is occupied by someone other Israel

Take a look at the first Palestine National Charter of 1964, this explicitly denies any claim to the West Bank and Gaza  which were then “occupied” by Jordan and Egypt:
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area
As I have said before the 'Palestinians' claim on Israel is nothing to do with the 'Palestinian' people. But don't listen to me, listen to Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said in 1977:


"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."

Read that again: "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 ."

Take a look back in time, until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organisations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

Remember that for many years, the PLO itself promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel. Indeed senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."...

Sunday, 2 June 2013

When you hear Palestinians say they want peace...

"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations." 
 Yasser Arafat

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

William Hague - deluded or worse?

In today's House of Commons address, William Hague made a rather strange assertion, he said:
'Nevertheless, President Abbas has decided to press ahead—a decision we must respect. No one should be in any doubt that he is a courageous man of peace. Our central objective remains that of ensuring a rapid return to credible negotiations in order to secure a two-state solution. This is the guiding principle that will determine the way in which we will vote on any resolution at any time.'
President Abbas a 'courageous man of peace', ''secure a two-state solution'. Here's his Head of Foreign Relations, Nabil Shaath, from July 2011



"a formula that is unacceptable to us.. two states for two peoples... We will be a state for one people...The story of "two states for two peoples" means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country..."
That's just his Head of Foreign Relations, William Hague said that Mahmoud Abbas was a courageous man of peace, do I hear anyone making that claim? Here's Mahmoud Abbas, from October 23, 2011:
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a "Jewish state."
Courageous? Man of peace? Do remember that for many years the PLO promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel. Indeed senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."... Also remember Mahmoud Abbas's statement that:
"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,"
Also remember what I blogged back in 2010: Israel National News has some recent quotes from Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that shows he's just as opposed to the continued existence of Israel as Hamas:
'Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Arab leaders that the PA is ready to wage war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does, according to the PA daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida as translated by Palestinian Media Watch. “If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it,” Abbas quoted himself as having said at the March Arab League Summit in Libya. ... Abbas quoted his own statements to the Arab League while in a meeting with the PA's ambassador to Jordan. The statements were used in explanation of his opposition to the approach taken by Hamas. Hamas pushes for “resistance” - a buzz word used by Arabs to refer to terrorism – and refusal to negotiate with Israel. "What we hear from everyone is that the basis is negotiations. At a time that the entire world agrees about this... We are unable to confront Israel militarily,” Abbas told the PA envoy. Abbas, who is serving as head of the PA after unilaterally extending his term in office, has made several statements in recent years that have raised concerns as to his true intentions. In 2008, as Israel and the PA engaged in peace talks, Abbas told a Jordanian paper that he opposed terrorism “at present” but that “things may change.” In March 2010, the PA held a ceremony naming a main square in Ramallah for a terrorist who led a cell that murdered 37 Israelis. In June, a broadcast on official PA television referred to Jews as “our enemies” and to the entire state of Israel as “Palestine.” Earlier this week, Abbas eulogized terrorist Abu Daoud, the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, calling him “one of the leading figures in Fatah.”Israel has officially referred to Abbas a "moderate" leader, as opposed to the leadership of Hamas, whose charter calls clearly for destroying Israel. (IsraelNationalNews.com)'
The Palestinian Authority a 'partner for peace'? Mahmoud Abbas a 'corageous man of peace'? Of course Mahmoud Abbas follows another man of peace as leader of Fatah, Yasser Arafat. Here's Yasser in his own words from 1980:
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations." "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel." "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." "The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine."
Fairly clear? Here's the same Yasser Arafat on the same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, explaining his actions on Jordan TV:
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
Pretty clear? The west listens to and believes what Mahmoud Abbas says about wanting a two state solution and a return to 1967 borders because that fits in with their world view of an evil Jewish state stealing land from poor Palestinians. The truth is some way from this narrative but the western media, especially the BBC, and the British Foreign Office just don't care; facts will not be allowed to intrude into their decided narrative.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat in his own words

"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations." "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel." "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." "The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine."
Is that clear? Any questions?

Sunday, 1 July 2012

The Palestinians only want peace

The Palestinians only want peace, so I am told.
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all out war, a war which will last for generations."
Yasser Arafat - El Mundo, of Caracas, Venzuela reports Arafat as saying (Feb 11, 1980) 


Oh that kind of peace.

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Dear @Tweet_Palestine

Over the past few weeks I have been in a Twitter conversation with @Tweet_Palestine and it has not been a pleasant experience. @Tweet_Palestine made a lot of the usual accusations about evil Israel and the poor Palestinians. @Tweet_Palestine has not really responded to any of my examples of where he/she/they is/are mistaken, so I thought I would put all of the links I posted and some others in one giant post giving the truth about the history of Israel and what Hamas and the Palestinian Authority really think about Israel and Jews.

So let's start with Israel's size and creation on Palestinian land.

Israel's very size at creation was a result of losing land. The first map below shows the land promised to Israel as the Jewish National Home in Palestine as demarcated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention. The second map shows the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders to form Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan, later Jordan, is the Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is the Jewish homeland.






The truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's another map of the Palestinian Mandate, see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?



So in 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” they began the 1948 war and lost.

The losing side did not sit back and lick their wounds, they took their revenge on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan — the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria — now held by Muslim forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the name of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the term “West Bank.”

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950.

Note that until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.


But what of the Palestinian people; who are they? I could quote any number of historians and politicians but lest they be tarnished by being called Zionist scum, as I have been for making this point before, let's listen to a senior Palestinian:

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organisation 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."

Read that again: "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 ."


Take a look back in time, until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organisations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that “what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond […] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.”

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons.

First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

The other claim that I have made to me is that the Palestinians only want to live in peace alongside Israel and that a return to the pre-1967 borders is all that they want. Leaving aside the fact that the armies of six surrounding Arab nations tried to wipe Israel off of the map in 1948 before Israel won another defensive war in 1967, the enemies of Israel make no secret of what they want and how they intend to achieve it.

Do remember that on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

The removal of East Jerusalem from Israel and a general return to the 1967 borders is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah/PLO/PA or the rest of the Muslim Middle East, it is but a staging post on the way to the eventual destruction of Israel.


The following are comments made by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya on his visit to Tunisia in early January 2012. The comments were all recorded and broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV:
"I say to you now, in the capital of south Tunisia: We will never ever recognize Israel."

"The land of Palestine, oh brothers and sisters, is an Islamic, as decreed by the second caliph, Omar ibn Al-Khattab. We shall not relinquish the Islamic waqf on the land of Palestine, and Jerusalem shall not be divided into Western and Eastern Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a single united [city], and Palestine stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and from Naqoura [Rosh Ha-Niqra] to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] in the south."


This is Hamas's leader in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, saying on 14 December that whilst Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," this in an "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel. Ismail Haniyeh also said this:
"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."
From the sea to the river, now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, remember that every time someone chants "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they are calling for the destruction of Israel, the ending of the Jewish state. The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean; from the river to the sea is not calling for a two state solution, it is calling for the destruction of Israel.

Two days after Ismail Haniyeh's speech, the Palestinian Authority's Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas leader abroad Khaled Mashaal had agreed that:
"There will be no military resistance."
"The permanent solution is on the '67 borders."
According to Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas had agreed to a permanent solution based on the 1967 borders. However, Haniyeh said that Hamas agrees to a temporary solution on the 1967 borders as a first stage only.

Who to believe?

Before you say Mahmoud Abbas, remember that for many years, the PLO itself promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel. Indeed senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."...


The west listens to and believes what Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas say about wanting a two state solution and a return to 1967 borders because that fits in with their world view of an evil Jewish state stealing land from poor Palestinians. The truth is some way from this narrative but the western media, especially the BBC, just don't care; facts will not be allowed to intrude into this narrative.


So the next time you hear a Palestinian spokesman saying they want to live in peace with Israel or a BBC Middle East 'expert' explaining how Hamas and the PLO have changed and really do want peace with Israel, remember that it's all lies. Hamas and Fatah/PLO want to destroy Israel, they claim all of the land that Israel stands on and the return to 1967 borders is but the first step on the path to destroying Israel and killing all Jews.


Another question that springs to mind when people say that the Palestinians want their land back is what was the case between 1948 and 1967. In 1948 Jordan 'occupied' the 'West Bank' whilst Egypt 'occupied' the Gaza Strip. Were there any protests by 'Palestinians' against these foreign occupations? I suppose an alternative question would be why was no Palestinian state formed in the West Bank and Gaza in 1949? Could it be that Zahir Muhsein was telling the truth?

A line that @Tweet_Palestine and others push is that the Jews are immigrants to a previously Muslim Palestine. Let's examine that claim and start with Jerusalem

Jerusalem was the capital of a Jewish state from around 1000BC until the Jews were expelled one, two or more times. When the State of Israel was created in 1948, it was alongside Jerusalem as a 'corpus separatum under the administration of the UN.' aka an international city. This regime was to remain in force for a period of ten years, whereupon a referendum was to be held in which the residents were to decide the future ownership of their city. This plan was superseded by the 1948 war when the armies of four or more Muslim states tried to wipe Israel off the map and drive all the Jews, who could not be killed, into the sea. The Arab Legion attacked Western Jerusalem and at the end of the 1948 war Israel controlled the newer western part of Jerusalem and Jordan the older east, including the main religious sites.

From 1948 until 1967 the Jordanians expelled Jews from Jerusalem, destroyed many synagogues and some churches and refused access to religious sites to most Jews and many Christians.

By way of contrast since 1967 Israel has not restricted access for Muslims to the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa Mosque despite them being partly built on top of the site of 'the Temple'; what would be the holiest site in Judaism had it not been destroyed. Indeed the Western ('Wailing') Wall is all that remains of the Second Temple.

Let's look back to the time when Israel was finally formed in the aftermath of the Second World War. This was a time of great population transfers in Eastern Europe, between India & Pakistan and elsewhere; yet only in Israel/Palestine are the displaced still considered refugees. In 1948 over a million Hindus fled Pakistan and a similar number of Muslims left India for Pakistan. Both populations were absorbed by their new countries. In the same region, large population transfers happened when Bangladesh was created. Likewise ethnic Germans were expelled from Central & Eastern Europe and so had to assimilate into Germany. Meanwhile Hungarian refugees from Czechoslovakia and other places found sanctuary in Hungary, Ukrainians who were expelled from Poland found sanctuary in Ukraine, and so on.

Meanwhile In the Middle East 750,000 Jews were expelled form their homes in Arab countries and were absorbed into Israel. Why were the 'Palestinians' not absorbed into Jordan, Syria, Egypt & The Lebanon? The Palestinians talk about the 'right of return' and their right to live in their ancestral homes again. Does the same right exist for the Jews forced to flee Iraq, Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries? The value of the assets these Jews left behind has been valued at today's prices at around $300 billion. A US based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel.

So why did the Arab countries not absorb the Palestinian refugees? In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which stated thus:
'The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.'
So the Palestinian refugees are not permanent refugees because of Israel's actions but because of a decision taken by the Arab League. Thus the accepted narrative that heaps blame on Israel because it expelled the refugees is actually not true.

Remember that I started this post by explaining that Israel lost around 77% of what was promised to the Jewish people for a homeland and now exists on a sliver of land surrounded by far larger Muslim countries why should Israel be further reduced in size? Do you realise how small Israel is? Why should the Jews not be allowed to keep one small portion of the land they were promised in the Balfour Declaration? If you listen to the BBC and The Guardian you would think Israel occupied (pun intended) an enormous part of the Middle East; here's a map to illustrate the truth; can you spot Israel amongst it's Muslim neighbours?




Let's take another quick look at the claim that the Palestinians only want a return to the pre-1967 borders, a claim that Barack Obama and others seem happy to swallow.

I'll begin with a reminder of the words of the then Fatah leader, Yasser Arafat on the same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

A return to 1967 borders for Israel is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah and the rest, it is a staging post on the way to the destruction of Israel.

The surrounding Arab countries attacked the new born state of Israel in 1948 declaring that they would drive all Jews into the sea. They failed and for that any sane person would give thanks but why did they attack were they demanding a return to the pre-1967 borders? In 1967 the same neighbours of Israel mustered forces ready to attack and destroy Israel again, once again they failed and in defeating the aggressors, Israel captured various territory. Why did the Arab countries attack Israel, were they demanding a return to the borders of 1967? Land captured in a defensive war is normally kept not surrendered back to the aggressors but in Israel's case this seems not be the case.

In 1973, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Muslim countries attacked Israel again and were defeated again, Israel captured more land from Egypt and Syria in another defensive war. Were the Arab countries in 1973 calling for a return to 1967 borders?

So despite the evidence of three wars started by Muslim countries to destroy Israel we are expected to believe that now the Palestinians just want peace so long as Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders. We are meant to ignore the words of Yasser Arafat in the past as quoted above but also of current Hamas leaders like Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, who said on 1 Jan 2009
"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
How about Fatah's 1968 Charter:
'– In the Palestinian state only Jews who lived in Palestine before 1917 will be recognized as citizens [Article 6]:
– Only the Palestinian Arabs possess the right of self-determination, and the entire country belongs to them [Articles 3 and 21].
– Any solution that does not involve total liberation of the country is rejected. This aim cannot be achieved politically; it can only be accomplished militarily [Articles 9 & 21].
– Warfare against Israel is legal, whereas Israel's self-defence is illegal [Article 18].'
That 1968 Charter does not call for Israel to return to 1967 borders it calls for 'the entire country' to return to Palestinian control.

Barack Obama should know this history but maybe his upbringing as a child in Indonesia and then as a knowing adult in the church of Jeremiah Wright may have affected him. In case he or you need reminding here are some facts about the state of Israel and Palestine.

If after all this you still believe that Hamas and Fatah just want Israel to return to 1967 borders then here is a question for you: if this is the case then why do Fatah and Hamas incessantly show maps (in schools, on TV, on logos, in government literature) that contain no mention of Israel just Palestine occupying the whole area of Israel and the Palestinian territories? If Fatah and Hamas want a return to 1967 orders then why do they not recognise those borders in their own literature and propaganda?

Here are a few examples



Maybe you'd like instead to read the lyrics of a song played regularly on PA TV that runs:
"Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Muhammad sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Kabha sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
From Bethlehem to Jenin is Palestinian,
Ramle, Lod and Sakhnin are Palestinian.
Nowhere is more beautiful than Jerusalem;
no matter how much we travel
From Safed to Al-Badhan (near Nablus) is Palestinian;
Tiberias and Ashkelon are Palestinian."
You can see the song being sung here. Not much interest in a return to 1967 borders there is there?

Over and over again Hamas, Fatah and others have stated that they want Israel destroyed, Jews killed and one Palestinian state in its place. Yet still we are expected to believe that a return to 1967 borders is all that is wanted.

@Tweet_Palestine claimed, as do many others, that Hamas and their ilk have no problem with (or hatred of Jews) just with Israel and Zionists. Let's examine the evidence:

Influential Islamic scholars Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious centre of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.”


Here are some excerpts from a Friday sermon in Al-Bireh, the Palestinian West Bank, which aired on Palestinian Authority TV on January 6, 2012.
'Preacher: "Oh servants of Allah, every evil and catastrophe on the land of Palestine – moreover, in the whole world – is caused by the Jews.

"They generate civil strife with their clandestine handiwork, their despicable texts, their bitter hearts, and their abominable intentions.

"Allah said: 'Whenever they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it, but they strive to do mischief on earth. Allah loves not those who do mischief.' This is the history of the Jews.'

Excerpts from footage of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya's visit to Tunisia, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV  was posted on the Internet on January 5-10, 2012. This is a transcript:
'Crowd: "The people want the liberation of Palestine.

"The people want the liberation of Palestine."

Crowd member: "Killing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Killing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Driving out the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Driving out the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Crushing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty."

Crowd member: "Crushing the Jews…"

Crowd: "…is a duty." […] '

So do the preacher and the crowd hate Israel or Jews?


This post has taken quite some time to put together; I hope that @Tweet_Palestine managed to make it through the whole post and has learnt something as a result.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

PCHR Gaza let the act out of the bag re East Jerusalem and the Palestinian state of Jordan

PCHR Gaza (the Palestinian Centre For Human Rights Ltd) issued a press release yesterday which included this:
'PCHR reiterates condemnation of all the Israeli policies aiming at the obliteration of Islamic and Christian features in East Jerusalem, and:
...
2. Confirms that East Jerusalem, which has been occupied since 05 June 1967, is an integral part of the oPt, and that procedures taken by Israel following the occupation of the city do not change its legal status.'
So PCHR Gaza claim that East Jerusalem has been 'occupied' since 1967, this surely menas that East Jerusalem was not 'occupied' immediately prior to Israel's capture of East Jerusalem in the defensive war of that year. Does that mean that the Palestinian's position (or at least that of PCHR) is that East Jerusalem belongs to Jordan and thus not a previous Palestinian state? Is this therefore recognition that Jordan was setup in 1929 as the Palestinian state, on land taken from that promised to a future Jewish state (itself not setup until 1948) and that what I first blogged here in 2010 is accepted by the Palestinians:


'The other uncomfortable truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's a map of the Palestinian Mandate, can you see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?



Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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."

Read that again: "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 ."
The enemies of Israel make no secret of what they want and how they intend to achieve it but we are expected to pretend that they want peace and a return to 1967 borders?
With that last thought in mind remember that on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

The removal of East Jerusalem from Israel and a general return to the 1967 is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah or the rest of the Muslim Middle East, it is but a staging post on the way to the eventual destruction of Israel. The various parties have made this clear over the years but for some reason many politicans and most of the media in 'The West' seem blind to this fact; I wonder why...

Sunday, 5 June 2011

Isn't that called an attempted invasion? BBC anti-Israel bias, again!

The BBC are currently reporting on this morning's Golan Geights incident thus:
'Golan: Israeli troops fire on Palestinian protesters

Israeli soldiers have fired on Palestinian protesters in Syria as they marched on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

A BBC producer said she saw dozens of people trying to cross the border, and then saw Israeli troops open fire.

Three people fell to the ground, but it was not clear if they were injured, she said. Syrian state TV says two people have died.

The protesters are marking the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Mid-East war.'
Note that wording 'A BBC producer said she saw dozens of people trying to cross the border, and then saw Israeli troops open fire.'. I expect it to change as the BBC realise that a reasonable person might believe it excuses the Israeli's behaviour, after all the Israeli troops were faced with people invading their country.

In case the BBC do change the wording, here is a screen dump of the page as it reads now

Note also how the BBC who love to add 'historical context' to other Middle East reports reminding people how Israeli settlements are'illegal' and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israel, do not do so here. The BBC baldly report that the Golan Helights are 'Israeli-occupied' without explaininh how they came to be and that 'The protesters are marking the 44th anniversary of the 1967 Mid-East war.' without explaining that the 1967 war was won by Israel fighting against multiple Muslim armies aiming to detroy Israel. I suppose reporting those facts might destroy the attempt to make Israel seem intransigent at not wanting to return to 1967 borders; the same borders that the Muslim countries did not accept in 1967 or indeed in 1948 when they first tried to destroy Israel.

I am getting tired of repeating the same arguments, quoting the same Fatah & Hamas spokesmen and showing how Israel's enemies do not want peace with Israel but rather the destruction of Israel. However since the majority of the MSM seem incapable of recognising these facts I suppose I will have to keep on, keeping on.

Let's begin with the words of the then Fatah leader, Yasser Arafat;  on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
A return to 1967 borders for Israel is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah and the rest, it is a staging post on the way to the destruction of Israel.

The surrounding Arab countries attacked the new born state of Israel in 1948 declaring that they would drive all Jews into the sea. They failed and for that any sane person would give thanks but why did they attack were they demanding a return to 1967 borders? In 1967 the same neighbours of Israel mustered forces ready to attack and destroy Israel again, once again they failed and in defeating the aggressors, Israel captured various territory. Why did the Arab countries attack Israel, were they demanding a return to the borders of 1967? Land captured in a defensive war is normally kept not surrendered back to the aggressors but in Israel's case this seems not be the case.


In 1973, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Arab countries attacked again and were defeated again, Israel captured more land from Egypt and Syria in another defensive war. Were the Arab countries in 1973 calling for a return to 1967 borders?

So despite the evidence of three wars started to destroy Israel we are expected to believe that now the Palestinians just want peace a Israel to return to its 1967 borders. We are meant to ignore the words of Yasser Arafat in the past as quoted above, of current Hamas leaders like Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, who said on 1 Jan 2009

"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
, of Fatah's 1968 Charter:
'– In the Palestinian state only Jews who lived in Palestine before 1917 will be recognized as citizens [Article 6]:
– Only the Palestinian Arabs possess the right of self-determination, and the entire country belongs to them [Articles 3 and 21].
– Any solution that does not involve total liberation of the country is rejected. This aim cannot be achieved politically; it can only be accomplished militarily [Articles 9 & 21].
– Warfare against Israel is legal, whereas Israel's self-defence is illegal [Article 18].'
That 1968 Charter does not call for Israel to return to 1967 borders it calls for 'the entire country' to return to Palestinian control.

Barack Obama should know this history but his upbringing as an innocent child in Indonesia and then as a knowing adult in the church of Jeremiah Wright may have affected him. In case he or you need reminding here are some facts about the state of Israel and Palestine. As I blogged last year:

'The other uncomfortable truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's a map of the Palestinian Mandate, can you see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?



Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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."

Read that again: "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
."
The enemies of Israel make no secret of what they want and how they intend to achieve it but we are expected to pretend that they want peace and a return to 1967 borders?


Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu met with Barack Obama after Barack Obama made that pre-emptive speech. The Israeli Prime Minister gave the US President a little history lesson and explained why a return to 1967 borders was not possible; I wonder if Barack Obama paid any attention. Watch from 7 minutes if you want to miss the Barack Obama blather...


If you still believe that Hamas and Fatah just want Israel to return to 1967 borders then here is a question for you: if this is the case then why do Fatah and Hamas incessantly show maps (in schools, on TV, on logos, in government literature) that contain no mention of Israel just Palestine occupying the whole area of Israel and the Palestinian territories? If Fatah and Hamas want a return to 1967 orders then why do they not recognise those borders in their own literature and propaganda?

Here are a few examples


For many more examples and context for the above please take a look at this PALWatch article entitled 'PA depicts a world without Israel - "Palestine" replaces Israel

maybe you'd like instead to read the lyrics of the song played regularly on PA TV that runs:
"Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Muhammad sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Kabha sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
From Bethlehem to Jenin is Palestinian,
Ramle, Lod and Sakhnin are Palestinian.
Nowhere is more beautiful than Jerusalem;
no matter how much we travel
From Safed to Al-Badhan (near Nablus) is Palestinian;
Tiberias and Ashkelon are Palestinian."
You can see the song being sung here. Not much interest in a return to 1967 borders there is there?


Over and over again Hamas, Fatah, Arab and other Islamic countries have stated that they want Israel destroyed, Jews killed and one Palestinian state in its place. Yet still we are expected to believe that a return to 1967 borders is all that is wanted. Even when we are told by Fatah that this is merely a staging post we are expected to ignore that and believe because the 'hope and change' President says so - I'm sorry but I don't believe Barack Obama or the Palestinians words and after reviewing the evidence I don't see how you could too.

Will the BBC ever report the facts or will they continue to report the pro-Palestinian propaganda?

Sunday, 22 May 2011

A return to 1967 borders

Barack Obama has decided that Israel should return to the 1967 borders as if that would satisfy the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries (and Iran). There is so much I want to say at this point but I must be careful to keep my anger in check.

Let's begin with the words of the then Fatah leader, Yasser Arafat;  on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
A return to 1967 borders for Israel is not the aim of Hamas, Fatah and the rest, it is a staging post on the way to the destruction of Israel.

The surrounding Arab countries attacked the new born state of Israel in 1948 declaring that they would drive all Jews into the sea. They failed and for that any sane person would give thanks but why did they attack were they demanding a return to 1967 borders? In 1967 the same neighbours of Israel mustered forces ready to attack and destroy Israel again, once again they failed and in defeating the aggressors, Israel captured various territory. Why did the Arab countries attack Israel, were they demanding a return to the borders of 1967? Land captured in a defensive war is normally kept not surrendered back to the aggressors but in Israel's case this seems not be the case.


In 1973, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Arab countries attacked again and were defeated again, Israel captured more land from Egypt and Syria in another defensive war. Were the Arab countries in 1973 calling for a return to 1967 borders?

So despite the evidence of three wars started to destroy Israel we are expected to believe that now the Palestinians just want peace a Israel to return to its 1967 borders. We are meant to ignore the words of Yasser Arafat in the past as quoted above, of current Hamas leaders like Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, who said on 1 Jan 2009
"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
, of Fatah's 1968 Charter:
'– In the Palestinian state only Jews who lived in Palestine before 1917 will be recognized as citizens [Article 6]:
– Only the Palestinian Arabs possess the right of self-determination, and the entire country belongs to them [Articles 3 and 21].
– Any solution that does not involve total liberation of the country is rejected. This aim cannot be achieved politically; it can only be accomplished militarily [Articles 9 & 21].
– Warfare against Israel is legal, whereas Israel's self-defence is illegal [Article 18].'
That 1968 Charter does not call for Israel to return to 1967 borders it calls for 'the entire country' to return to Palestinian control.

Barack Obama should know this history but his upbringing as an innocent child in Indonesia and then as a knowing adult in the church of Jeremiah Wright may have affected him. In case he or you need reminding here are some facts about the state of Israel and Palestine. As I blogged last year:

'The other uncomfortable truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's a map of the Palestinian Mandate, can you see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?



Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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."

Read that again: "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
."
The enemies of Israel make no secret of what they want and how they intend to achieve it but we are expected to pretend that they want peace and a return to 1967 borders?


Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu met with Barack Obama after Barack Obama made that pre-emptive speech. The Israeli Prime Minister gave the US President a little history lesson and explained why a return to 1967 borders was not possible; I wonder if Barack Obama paid any attention. Watch from 7 minutes if you want to miss the Barack Obama blather...


If you still believe that Hamas and Fatah just want Israel to return to 1967 borders then here is a question for you: if this is the case then why do Fatah and Hamas incessantly show maps (in schools, on TV, on logos, in government literature) that contain no mention of Israel just Palestine occupying the whole area of Israel and the Palestinian territories? If Fatah and Hamas want a return to 1967 orders then why do they not recognise those borders in their own literature and propaganda?

Here are a few examples


For many more examples and context for the above please take a look at this PALWatch article entitled 'PA depicts a world without Israel - "Palestine" replaces Israel

maybe you'd like instead to read the lyrics of the song played regularly on PA TV that runs:
"Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Muhammad sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Nazareth are ours.
[I] Kabha sing about the Galilee and the Golan (Heights).
From Bethlehem to Jenin is Palestinian,
Ramle, Lod and Sakhnin are Palestinian.
Nowhere is more beautiful than Jerusalem;
no matter how much we travel
From Safed to Al-Badhan (near Nablus) is Palestinian;
Tiberias and Ashkelon are Palestinian."
You can see the song being sung here. Not much interest in a return to 1967 borders there is there?


Over and over again Hamas, Fatah, Arab and other Islamic countries have stated that they want Israel destroyed, Jews killed and one Palestinian state in its place. Yet still we are expected to believe that a return to 1967 borders is all that is wanted. Even when we are told by Fatah that this is merely a staging post we are expected to ignore that and believe because the 'hope and change' President says so - I'm sorry but I don't believe Barack Obama or the Palestinians words and after reviewing the evidence I don't see how you could too.

Friday, 24 December 2010

Complaining to the BBC and their partial replies (part 1)

I have received two replies to my complaints about bias in the way that the BBC eagerly report the comments of extremist Israelis whilst minimising coberage of genoicidal Hamas and Fatah leaders.

Here is the reply I received on 16 November from the BBC, apologies for the late posting of it and my late response but I missed the email arriving:

'On 16 November 2010 14:32, NewsOnline Complaints wrote:


notasheepmaybeagoat@googlemail.com
Dear Notasheep,
Thank you for your further comments.
I tried to explain in my first email why we felt it editorial justified to report Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments because of his importance and their timing.

We have, of course, reported the actions, policies and statements of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. We tend, where possible to conduct our own interviews with such figures. 

The answer to one of your specific questions, based on a search of the site, is no. We did not report the statement by Ahmed Yassin regarding reconciliation with Israel being a crime or that Israel. In our obituary of Yassin we say: It was there that he formed the belief that Palestine was an Islamic land "consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day", and that no Arab leader had the right to give up any part of this territory.

Our current profile of Hamas makes it absolutely clear that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, though its leaders often talk about a long tern truce following the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territory. This, I would argue, covers the substance of Yassin's comments and points to some range or nuance ion Hamas' position. 
The BBC News website was launched in 1997, so it's not possible for me to check whether we reported the Yasser Arafat comment that you refer to.

Best regards,

Tarik Kafala, Middle East editor, BBC News website


Here is my response:

'Thank you for your reply and I apologise for not replying sooner but I managed to miss your email arriving.

I note that you have looked into the BBC's reporting of Ahmed Yassin's comments and assure me that you reported in his obituary that 'It was there that he formed the belief that Palestine was an Islamic land "consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day", and that no Arab leader had the right to give up any part of this territory.' I think that is rather milder than the statements that I asked if the BBC had ever reported. It seems that the BBC is eager to  report the wilder comments of a relatively minor Israeli Rabbi but connives in hiding the true feelings and objectives of many Hamas and Fatah religious and secular leaders. Look at what the BBC wrote in the obituary and ask yourself if that comes close to truly representing the words that I quoted? 

I ask again, did the BBC web news report Hamas cleric Ziyad Abu al-Haj's Friday sermon of 3 April 2009 in which he said "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."?

Maybe you could also show me where BBC web news reported the words of Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University on 13 October 2000 when he said "The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."


You go on to say that 'Our current profile of Hamas makes it absolutely clear that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, though its leaders often talk about a long tern truce following the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territory. This, I would argue, covers the substance of Yassin's comments and points to some range or nuance ion Hamas' position.' I disagree. By choosing to report just one nuanced type of comments made by Hamas and Fatah leaders you are skewing public opinion, public opinion that should be allowed to see the full extent of Hamas avowed hatred for all Jews and declared murderous intent towards them. Maybe you could explain to me the nuance in the position that "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."?' Maybe you could show me the range in saying " It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."?

Do the BBC consider that sentiments like those I have quoted above are not worthy of reporting or were the BBC unaware of them?

Do you consider that Yasser Arafat's comments are worthy of reporting and would BBC Online have reported them had the means been available in 1993?


Once again I consider that the BBC have not fully addressed my complaint, please do so now.


Regards

NotaSheep'

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Post, comment, discourse versus post, insult, retort - Israel and the Palestinians related, as if you couldn't have guessed

I posted very little yesterday as I was involved in an interesting conversation with a commenter on one of my earlier postings. I think that the conversation was an illuminating one and so I have reproduced it here in full. I have not edited our words but I have made the links we mentioned clickable. This intelligent discourse contrasts starkly with the comment I received in the small hours of this morning from another anonymous commenter; someone I think is claiming to be from Viva Palestina. This somewhat shorter conversation follows at the very end of this post by way of contrast.

Saturday, 20 November 2010


The BBC and when the use of phosphorous shells is a crime and when it is not worthy of attention

In 2009 the BBC were obsessed by the 'war crime' of Israel using white phosphorus shells, the Israelis claim that it was used to provide smoke cover not as a weapon were barely acknowledged under the weight of disapproval. However 18 months on and the BBC choose not to report the use of phosphor in shells fired from Gaza. If the use of phosphorous was a war crime when carried out by Israel in 2009 then why is it not even worth a mention when carried out by Hamas in 2010?


Thanks to Biodegradeable at Biased-BBC for the spot.


17 comments:

Anonymous said...
Picture the scene. You're hemmed into the concentration camp formerly known as Gaza. It's 2007. The Israeli security force starts throwing burning phosphorus at you. It burns your skin, right down to the bone and out the other side. You cry to the international community about your pain. Nobody cares. Some right-wing zionists say you're making it all up, the israelis never threw any phosphorus. Then they say they did, but only for the smoke it produces. Enraged at the violence and lies, you score your own phosphorus and throw it back. Predictably, the right-wing bloggers are up in arms, denouncing you as a figure of hate, but they can't see the hypocrisy staring them in the face. The world is mad.
Not a sheep said...
a) Gaza is not a concentration camp - do your research b) Who are these people so burned by phosphorous, the United Nations would have made them all 'poster boys' if they existed c) Why right-wing Zionists? Are they worse than left-wing Zionists? d) So Hamas only use Phosphorous shells because Israel do. Even if this were true, which it isn't, would that not still be a war crime? Or are Jews only capable of war crimes not Islamic terrorists? If the world is mad, your world view is seriously warped.
Anonymous said...
A) are you saying the Palestinians in Gaza are free to come and go as they please? B) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4325805/Gaza-phosphorus-casualties-relive-Israels-three-week-war.html http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1497 C) yes D) of course its still a war crime. But you are criticizing Palestinians for using phosphorus when Israel used it first! desperate people such as the occupants of Gaza, bombed with white phosphorus, respond with similar. wow, what a shock. if I was to strike you, you could strike me back. both strikes would be wrong, but the second strike is somewhat justified. you've got your head in the clouds if you think Israel hasn't used phosphorus. just go to YouTube, type in "gaza phosphorus". you're lying to yourself and it is sickening, to be honest. are you that brainwashed?
Not a sheep said...
a) So your definition of a 'concentration camp' is somewhere where people are not free to come and go as they please. Is that what you think happened in World War II? Were Jews just not allowed to come and go as they wishes? b) I think your third source can be discounted as maybe a touch biased. As for the other two, I see no porof just the claims of Palestinians. Indeed The Times report includes this line 'Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons.' and HRW are no friends of Israel. The Telegraph piece includes the plauible explanation that 'The Israeli government has accused people like the Halima family of being coached by Hamas to spout fiction.' c) What is the difference between a right-wing Zionist and a left-wing Zionist? d) So you admit that Hamas comitted a war-crime, will you be protesting tho the United nations about this? Oh no, I see that you think that Hamas are excused from their guilt because 'Israel used it first'. I think you are missing the point that whilst Hamas used Phosphorous shells as a weapon (which is a war crime), Israel used a shell that 'is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops.' Do you see the difference or are Israel always wrong in your world-view? You call me 'brainwashed'; look at the evidence below: Look at the Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacksmesures. It is Hamas's avowed aim to kill all Israelis and indeed all Jews. 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it' 'Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.' 'The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.' 'There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.' '...the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "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). The implication is clear: Allah promised that the Jews will be murdered, and the Hamas "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take.' Ask yourself one question, if Hamas laid down its arms would Israel use the opportuinty to kill all the residents of Gaza? Now ask yourself what would happen if Israel disarmed...?
Anonymous said...
A) you are confusing death camps with concentration camps. In Nazi Germany, Jews were kept in both kinds of these camps, and the allies built their own concentration camps for POWs, or in the case of the US, for their Japanese-American citizens. Now obviously Gaza is not a purpose built concentration camp, but building a wall around it based on ethnic grounds amounts to pretty much the same thing, no? B) oh please. Is it just Palestinians claiming the use of phosphorus or is it the UN and the entire international community as well? Even right wing papers like times and telegraph accuse Israel. As for the other source, I posted it because you wanted photographs - did they draw the wounds on do you think?? Do you think Israel never lies to the international community?? Do you want a list?? My point is that you immediately accept claims that Hamas used phosphorus but immediately reject claims that Israel used (much larger quantities of) phosphorus. That, my little right-winged friend, is doublethink! But anyway, I sense we are digressing somewhat. C) the difference is, obviously, that nationalism is a preserve of the right wing, which has got you all into this mess. The leftwing emphasises equality, something that doesn't come to mind when we look at the region. D) then you provide lots of quotations from enraged nationalist Hamas militants presumably to try and convey what EVIL PEOPLE we are dealing with here. But Israel has been utterly racist to the Palestinians for just as long, and can we not forget that this whole problem was created when Israel took Palestinian land? The Israeli leaders knew they would have to kill all Palestinians to achieve this in the longterm. You get so riled about Hamas, who were formed in the 80s, but can't understand the reason they exist. It's a reaction to the fundamental illegality of the creation of the state of Israel. Now personally I believe anyone should be able to live anywhere they like and that for me includes Jews in the holy land, but other people want live there as well. Israel should let them and not be so nationalist and racist. I haven't the time to check the veracity of the quotes from Hamas, partly because you didn't include sources. You'll probably dispute the following website's neutrality, but I guess you can check out some of the quotes if you want. Leading Jews - or people who profess to be Jews at least - have had a plan of Arab elimination from the region, by death or expulsion, since well before 1948 and it continues to this day. In that context, I'm not surprised Hamas feel the way they do, but of course I do not condone their actions. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.php
Anonymous said...
"Ask yourself one question, if Hamas laid down its arms would Israel use the opportuinty to kill all the residents of Gaza? Now ask yourself what would happen if Israel disarmed...?" "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. "Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." - Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982
Not a sheep said...
a) I was using the term 'concentration camps' in the sense that they are usually used and the way that the vast majority of people would understand it. It is good to see that you do know that the term existed outside of Nazi Germany, indeed the term was first used to describe some of the actions used by the British during the Boer War. No I do not think that Gaza is a 'concentration camp', have you seen what life is like in Gaza for the majority of people - shopping malls, food aplenty and life could be even better if Hamas stopped its attacks on Israel. b) If there was proof of deliberate use by Israel of phosphorous shells against civilians then rest assured that the United Nations would have passed many a resolution to that effects. You ask if I want a list of Israel's lies to the international community; whilst I hate to resort to your line in your previous comment - would you like a list of Hamas's lies? c) 'nationalism is the preserve of the right-wing'. Is all nationalism bad? How about the nationalism of the Palestinians, nationalism for a nation that has never existed as a sepaarate country but had a homeland formed for it - Jordan? d) Israel took Palestinians land? It was a United nations resolution that took the whole of the land that had been promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and split it between other countries. The part of Palestine that was taken from what was meant to be Israel in 1929, was used to craete Jordan. Jews have lived in the area now called Israel for millenia, as I am sure you know. You can read more about this here - http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/10/viva-palestina-some-uncomftable-truths.html ... cont
Not a sheep said...
... cont A comparison for the creation of Israel in 1948 can be found in the partition of Pakistan and India a year earlier. In that case many millions of people moved from one side of the border to the other as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was seen not to be a greeat place by the vast majority of Hindus, Sikhs & Buddhists to live and likewise many (but not all) Muslims left their homes in India for a new life in Pakistan. A similar swap of populations happened in 1948 and soon after as as many Jews fled or were forced out of Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan etc. for Israel, as Palestinians left israel. In the former case there are no 'refugee camps' just two countries living alongside each other, whilst not in totally happy accord, at least in relativce peace (Kashmir excepted). In the latter case, the Jews expulsion form Muslim countries is largely forgotten, whilst the palestinians is not. You might want to read this site for more of what really happened in 1948 - http://www.jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/ You say that 'personally I believe anyone should be able to live anywhere they like and that for me includes Jews in the holy land,'. Which is quite correct however you also say complain of the 'fundamental illegality of the creation of the state of Israel'. You might want to investigate how many Jews Jordan let visit the Jewish holy sites Jerusalem during the period they held control of Jerusalem and compare that with the freedom of religion that Muslims have in Israel today. You might also want to ask yourself how many Muslim MPs there are in Israel and compare that with the number of Jewish MPs in any Muslim country. Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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." Why is it not acceptable for Israel to be a Jewish state, albeit one where Muslims have the vote and rights as Jews, but it is acceptable for the Palestinian Authority to want to want a Jew free land? Read here - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138856 - the PA Chairman's words "I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land". ... cont
Not a sheep said...
... cont You wanted sources for the quotations I provided, they are all from Hamas's Charter and associated documnets and can be found on my site and elsewhere - http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm is one such source. Here are some others for you to think about: "The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." Ziyad Abu al-Haj, Hamas cleric in Friday sermon 3 April 2009 "Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, 1 Jan 2009 "We find occasional condemnation and denunciation of the resistance operations and bombings [suicide attacks], carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance branches... [Eventually] everyone will know that we did this [suicide attacks] only because our Lord commanded so - 'I did it not of my own accord' [Quran] - and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the world." Source: Al-Rissala (Hamas weekly), 23 Apr 2007 "The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere." Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University: 13 October 2000 "Fatah is not responding [to the Goldstone Report], is not apologizing, is not sorry, and does not recognize Israel. It is the PLO that negotiates on behalf of the Palestinian people." Ahmad Assaf, Fatah spokesman: 8 Feb 2010 Do also remember that on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." Once again I ask you to read what Hamas and Fatah leaders, not isolated oddballs but secular and religious leaders say they want to do to all Jews (not just Israelis) and ask yourself one question, if Hamas laid down its arms would Israel use the opportuinty to kill all the residents of Gaza? Now ask yourself what would happen if Israel disarmed...?
Not a sheep said...
In reply to your 10:20 comment that I did not see until after I replied to your earlier post... "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. I refer you to http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=775 'Of the “memorable quotes” featured on MIFTAH’s Web site (some of which have already been debunked in Part I), the following is attributed to one Chairman Heilbrun: We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves. Source given: Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983 Investigation: The quote is found on numerous anti-Israel sites, in addition to MIFTAH’s, but the facts do not check out. While Shlomo Lahat was indeed re-elected as mayor of Tel Aviv in 1983, no record was found of any “Chairman Heilbrun.” The quote was traced to a 1988 book, The Hidden History of Zionism, by radical Marxist Ralph Schoenman (dismissed by mainstream historians as a crazed conspiracy theorist), and is one of many bogus quotes in the book attributed to Israeli leaders. According to Schoenman’s footnote, the quote by Heilbrun was hearsay relayed to him in private conversations: Cited by Fouzi El-Asmar and Salih Baransi during discussions with the author, October 1983 Needless to say, Schoenman’s scholarship, upon which many anti-Israel Web sites depend, leaves much wanting. CAMERA contacted former Mayor Lahat who attested that he has never employed, known or heard of any such person as “Chairman Heilbrun,” and that the reported incident never took place. Lahat also emphasized that he would never allow any of his employees to make such statements, as it completely contradicts his own sentiments about Palestinians. Summary: Fabricated quote, fabricated source' "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. I refer you to http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=766 'Investigation: The quote does not appear in either article. While both sources discuss comments made by then-outgoing Chief of Staff Eitan, there is nothing remotely resembling this quote. A wider search of the New York Times archives, also turns up nothing.' cont...
Not a sheep said...
...cont "Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." - Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesse [Israeli Parliament] quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin antd the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982 I refer you to http://begincenterdiary.blogspot.com/2009/05/correcting-misquotation-reputedly-by.html and http://www.camera.org/ '...Internet hate sites, as well as Fisk, attribute the derogation of Palestinians as “two-legged beasts” to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The source generally given is: Menachem Begin, as quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts, "New Statesman, June 25, 1982 Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The author posited: For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanize the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as "beasts walking on two legs However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was referring not to "the Palestinians" in a general sense but very specifically, he was referring to terrorists who target children within Israel...Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception...' Maybe you could let me know whether the quotations that I provided are factual or similarly flawed?
Anonymous said...
ok, you leave me with much to deal with! first off, it just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read on the internet! it seems those quotations i provided are falsified or outright fabrications. fair enough, i withdraw them and thankyou for dealing with them. i also do not doubt the veracity of your quotes now that you have provided sources - just like i do not doubt that the people who lead Hamas are fundamentalists opposed to the existence of Jews in general, and of course i denounce this position. The difference I am trying to highlight between our viewpoints is that, although the beliefs of Hamas are evil, I can see and understand how these beliefs have become established. Just like, if I and a few thousand mates came and camped in your back garden for a few years, I can understand how that might really get to you after a while. ok... A) is Gaza a concentration camp? no. can it be likened to a concentration camp, in that people are not free to leave? that conditions within Gaza are lower than average and deteriorating further? that education, health are lower and poverty is higher? Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion is on Oxfam's website and was commissioned with Amnesty, Save the Children, etc. I'm sure you're already aware of it. so i think 'concentration camp' is a fair analogy. you would say that cynical, hateful people only use it against Israel because they know how offensive the use of that phrase, in a historical context, is to Jewish people. I would say that people use it against Israel to highlight the hypocrisy Israel is showing to the world. it seems like Israel is acting out "do to others what has been done to us". people find it genuinely saddening that Jewish people could not equate what they are doing in Gaza to what has happened to them (for the record, we are not talking about death camps here). B) look, you're going to have to accept israel used white phosphorus in built up areas, which is illegal, and dint just use them as a smokescreen. UN sanctions? No, just the Goldstone report. And the Human Rights Watch report: http://www.hrw.org/node/81760 And the Amnesty investigation into birth defects. From what you have said above, you're implying that the UN did nothing about the claims of phosphorus use because they were so lacking in foundation. Come on, we both know thats not the case.
Anonymous said...
C) yes, to me, all nationalism is bad, and its only legitimate and non-destructive application is in sport. what has nationalism brought us, but war? (yes, the nationalism of the palestinians is also bad). D)technically, it was the League of Nations, not the United Nations, and it was right that they took the indigenous populations into account (we are talking 1919/ealy 20s). and yes, Jews had lived in the area for millenia, of course, but in 1900 there were 70,000 Jews in Palestine, and now there are 5.5million in Israel. This is clearly the source of the conflict. You then compare the population displacement with India/Pakistan and conclude that the Indian subcontinent is in a much better situation, despite Kashmir. I've got to disagree with you there! India and Pakistan have both became nuclear powers to deal with the threat of each other and the process of 'nation-building' by western powers that thought themselves so enlightened have nearly always resulted in failure, measurable by the conflicts we see in the world today. You make some good points about the way the word 'palestinian' has been used as a tactical/political method rather than a true term. also, i do not doubt that some palestinians would not want a single jew living in a palestinian state, but again, i see the motivation for this - they are deeply paranoid that if they ever get to a palestinian state that it will be taken from them. Now to your final question (which seems to get recycled a lot as if its some universal truth, but its just clever framing of the question): "if Hamas laid down its arms would Israel use the opportuinty to kill all the residents of Gaza? Now ask yourself what would happen if Israel disarmed...?" If Hamas laid down its weapons, Israel would build more houses and drive them out that way - by colonization. It seems to me that, now, there is so much entrenched hate on either side that neither can see the other's point of view. For what its worth, I think this has been a valuable discussion, and it has challenged some of my preconceptions, and you seem to be an intelligent and motivated person. I just wish you would not take whatever Israel says as gospel ("we didnt fire phosphorus in an illegal way") and be a bit more balanced in the way you write your blog. For my part, I'll try to stay off the anti-semitic websites and check my own sources more in future. I'm interested in conspiracy theory, and whilst some of it is good stuff, some is shot through with anti-semitism. i'm sure you well aware.
Not a sheep said...
Anon 13:27: Thank you for accepting that your quotes were not kosher. That is one of the problems with the internet, these 'quotations' spread so fast and cannot usually be corrected. I am glad that I did answer your original post as I feel that this dialogue is assisting us both to think and maybe trim our positions; let's see! I am afraid that I must part with you when you say that you say that 'although the beliefs of Hamas are evil, I can see and understand how these beliefs have become established.' The trouble is that these beliefs are not new or even just been around since 1948. Nizar Rayan's line "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" is somewhat older. It is from 'The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)' and is often translated thus 'Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.' On November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty" According to the Koran, the Jews are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98). If you want a history of how Muslims have treated Jews since the times of Mohammed I recommend http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html Here are a few more quotations from the Koran to show you that the hatred of Jews amongst many Muslims is not a result of the creation of the State of Israel but pre-dates it by well over a thousand years. "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-) Moving on, you write 'Just like, if I and a few thousand mates came and camped in your back garden for a few years, I can understand how that might really get to you after a while.' This is not a fair analogy. What would be fairer is if my family lived continuously on some land for several thousand years before it was split into half, one half for me and one half for the people who hated me. 19 years later my land was halved again and my relatives were thrown out of nearby homes for being like me. Meanwhile my six large neighbours all set upon me and my family at the same time, vowing to kill us all. Do you see why I might feel a little threatened,especially when my large neighbours try the same trick a further 19 years later and then again on my holiest religious day a further six years later? Yes I understand that the Palestinians feel aggrieved at 'losing their land' but as I have tried to point out lots of people lost their land but whilst the JEws thrown out of Syria have made lives for themselves in Israel and 'made the desert bloom', the Palestinians who left Israel have done nothing similar. Do you think that Israel got only the good bits of 'Palestine'? Or that the Israelis just worked harder to make a go of it? ... cont
Not a sheep said...
... cont a) Yes I agree that the people of Gaza are not free to come and go as they please. However, and it is a huge HOWEVER, Gaza has a land border with Egypt as well as Israel. If Egypt wanted to end the 'siege' of Gaza it could do in a moment. It chooses not to... Poverty levels in the West Bank and Gaza are not good but at $2,900 GDP per capita the people of Gaza (and the West Bank) are better off than those in Bangladesh (almost twice the per capita GDP), only slightly more wealthy than Cameroon and only slightly less wealthy than India. Yes many people in Gaza are poor but this is not the fault of Israel or the donor countries of the West who pay $ billions of aid. The fault lies with the Palestinian elite who siphon off the money and use poverty as a weapon to attack Israel with. Yasser Arafat's wife is rumoured to receive around £11 a year from the Palestinian Authority. Before we leave the poverty of the Palestinians and Israel's culpability, how do you explain the Shatila refugee camp south of Beirut? Palestinians in Lebanon cannot own a house or land, or become lawyers, engineers or doctors. This is not an isolated occurrence, there are another 11 Palestinian 'refugee camps' in Lebanon, but oddly they receive very little publicity when compared to those whose existence can be blamed on Israel. This Guardian article might be of interest in this regard - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/24/palestinian-refugees-lebanon-rights b) I accept that Israel used phosphorous shells, I cannot be sure if they were used just as a smokescreen or not. If they were not then I would criticise Israel for that action, it is not acceptable to me. Please do not confuse the Goldstone report with an unbiased analysis. Look at the parameters it was issued to report under and look at the report itself. The report asserts that the Gaza police force was a "civilian" agency, even though it merged with Hamas's own paramilitary "Executive Force" after Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. The report also says it could not "establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activity," despite widely available real-time video evidence to the contrary. The Goldstone report seems to argue that it is fine for Hamas to surround its combatants with civilians (although it is not),but for Israel to strike back is a war crime. The Goldstone report treats Israel as the sole aggressor in the conflict, even though the Israeli government sat still for more than three years as Hamas transformed Gaza into a terrorist enclave while firing rockets at Israeli towns and cities. At exactly what point, if any, does Mr. Goldstone believe Israel is entitled to self defense? At what point do you think Israel is entitled to act in self defense? cont...
Not a sheep said...
...cont c) You say that all nationalism is bad. I disagree but I can see your line of reasoning. d) You are quite right, mea culpa, it was the League of Nations - my history teacher would not be impressed. To the 70,000 in Palestine you must add the approx 750,000 who were expelled from their homes in surrounding countries and fled to Israel. This was a population transfer, similar (not the same) to that between India and Pakistan and indeed to the huge flows across Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. JCPA - http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=861&IID=1020&TTL=The_Forgotten_Narrative:_Jewish_Refugees_from_Arab_Countries.html - have a fascinating article about this aspect of the story of Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians talk about the 'right of return' and their right to live in their ancestral homes again. Does the same right exist for the JEws forced to flee Iraq, Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries? The value of the assets these Jews left behind has been valued at today's prices at around $300 billion. A US based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel. My comparison with India/Pakistan is based on the very similar antiquity, similar religious differences (although Hindus are pantheists not monotheists, Sikhism is a different kettle of fish altogether and as for Buddhism; I am not a theologian). Western nation building alone did not result in the creation of Pakistan and India as separate entities, you need to also consider the calls by Mohammad Ali Jinnah for a separate Muslim 'nation' and such as Veer Savarkar who accepted that 'India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims.' Yes there were one nation Hindus, Gandhi and many Muslims were of this view. Gandhi lost the support of many Hindus by his efforts (some would say at too much cost) to keep India one country. Gandhi was assassinated not by a Muslim but by a Hindu nationalist. I don't want to stray onto the history of the foundation of India and Pakistan, fascinating subject though it is, but India was not exactly ruled by Great Britain, the roles of the Maharajahs and various Prines is worthy of attention. As you may tell, I love history I am sorry but I cannot agree with your view that 'i do not doubt that some palestinians would not want a single jew living in a palestinian state, but again, i see the motivation for this - they are deeply paranoid that if they ever get to a palestinian state that it will be taken from them.' Israel has offered the Palestinians a state of their own before only to have the offer thrown back at them. After the Camp David talks collapsed due to Yasser Arafat's intransigence. Indeed President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one." Other comments by Yasser Arafat are in my previous comments. cont...
Not a sheep said...
cont... Do you seriously believe that without Hamas, Israel would just build and build and build and drive the Palestinians out 'that way'? I can assure you that whilst that might become the aim of some Israelis, the Israeli government would not allow it. Remember it was the Israeli government government that dragged settlers from their homes in Gaza prior to handing Gaza over to the Palestinians. It was the Palestinians that destroyed the greenhouses and other plant and machinery left by Israel to give the new Palestinians a start on this land. No all Israelis are not perfect, far from it, but they have genuinely tried to live in peace with their neighbours. 'Land for peace' is often the cry, do you remember when Israel gave up the Sinai (with all of its oil) to Egypt in return for peace? The Sinai, captured in 1967, was bigger than Israel; yes Israel gave away land bigger than it is for peace with Egypt, it can'y keep giving away land - do you know how small Israel is? This site - http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps.htm - will enlighten you. Israel is a tiny country surrounded by larger Muslim countries. Can not the Jews who were living in Israel/Palestine over 2,000 years before the birth of Mohammed not be allowed their homeland? I agree that this has been a worthwhile discussion and I am glad that I responded to your first comment. I hope that I am intelligent, I try to be and I am motivated, above all by a sense of fairness. I don't take all that Israel says as the gospel truth; although associating the gospels with Israel is historically accurate, if religiously difficult. The problem I have with 'fairness' is that the majority of the news about the Middle East, that is presented as fact, in the west is very heavily slanted against Israel. I try and redress this balance by pointing out the bias and the unfairness. Unlike some pro-Israel sites that are out there; I do not see every Muslim as the enemy, my Muslim colleagues would attest to that, nor do I do think that the Palestinians do not deserve their own state. You are right there is a lot of anti-Semitism out there on the internet and you need to take care who or what you believe. Good luck out there and if you need to check a fact do come back here.

An interesting discussion, I think that you will agree, and one that I would not have had if I had dismissed the original comment without replying. I would seem to have moved 'Anonymous' slightly away from his original position, shown him that all that he reads on some websites may not be true and that I am not the hatemonger that I think he first thought I was.


So what should I do re this comment?

Thursday, 7 October 2010


Viva Palestina - some uncomfortable truths

Harry's Place has two excellent pieces regarding the hateful Viva Palestina and their quest to break the 'siege of Gaza'. The first article explores the recent visit to Syria by Viva Palestina trustee Kevin Ovenden who
'addressed the welcoming party while standing underneath flags of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

Once you take a closer look at the SSNP it becomes very clear that no self-respecting socialist or humanitarian would go anywhere near them, let alone let themselves be photographed standing under their emblems.

Even if we ignore their suspiciously familiar imagery of lightning bolts and eagles (compare and contrast) or their flags, there is no mistaking:

–Their antisemitic ideology (from the SSNP’s exhibition at the Damascus College of Fine Art: “Our struggle with the Jew [collective noun] is a struggle of existence not a struggle of borders,” i.e., it’s an existential struggle, not a geographical one).'

This Harry's Place article also reminds us of where the SSNP stood in the war between the Lebanese Army and others and the PLO in 1985:
'Jubin M. Goodarzi wrote in “Syria and Iran” (p. 152) that by the the summer of 1985, “the ceasefire could not have come sooner for the Palestinians, since they had almost run out of ammunition and had suffered enormously. More than 600 refugees were killed and 2500 wounded during the blockade.”

Oh dear. Participating in a war against Palestinians? Against Palestinian self-determination? Blockading Palestinian refugee camps? Sieges? No leftwinger with any sense of self-worth would go near a group such as that, let alone get photographed standing underneath their flags.

So much for Palestinian solidarity.'


The second Harry's Place article about Viva Palestina explains the links between Viva Palestina and Jordan (the Country not Katie Price) and especially the Jordanian Maysara Malas. Mr Malas seems a lovely chap:
'
“There will not be any normalisation with the Jewish state unless a Palestinian state is established from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”


...

Malas called on the government to release Daqamseh, who is serving a life sentence and has 5 years left, “especially after all the threats the Zionist entity is constituting to the security and stability of Jordan.”

Ahmed Daqamseh is the Jordanian soldier who murdered seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997.

What a fine partner Malas is for Viva Palestina.'


The other uncomfortable truth about Jordan is that it is the Palestinian State. It was set-up in 1929 on part of the land promised by the 1917 Balfour declaration for the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. Here's a map of the Palestinian Mandate, can you see how it divides between what is now Israel and what is now Jordan?


Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization 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."


Remember also that on the same day Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV thus
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."


1 comments: Anonymous said...



"The Palestinian people does not exist." What a retard. Stop spamming my site!


Blogger Not a sheep said...
Please read my article in full before commenting again, you might learn something. I will let your 'retard' insult pass this time but try and keep any further comments to that of a civilised nature. How can I be spamming your site? By linking to it?
23 November 2010 09:38
Ah well not everyone is interested in intelligent discussion or facts.