In various places in the blogosphere and beyond I have seen shock expressed that Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador to the USA said recently that a future Palestinian state would have to be free of Jews. Many have asked which the last Judenfrei state was, hoping that one would answer Nazi Germany and this be shocked.
Those of us who have long listened to what Fatah and Hamas leaders have said about the future of the Middle East are not in the slightest bit surprised. Hamas's Charter and its plans for Israel have been well known for many years, I have blogged numerous times about their desire to cleanse Israel of Jews. Fatah/PLO's plans are less well publicised as Western governments have tried to portray these cojoined entities as the reasonable face of Palestinian aspirations. However Fatah/PLO have similar plans for Israel albeit over a longer term. Hamas's Mahmoud Al-Zahar recently declared that Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, or a compromise agreement with the Palestinian Authority, as only a 'first stage' towards the destruction of Israel in its entirety. He asserted that this was the key difference between Hamas and their secular rivals, Fatah.
Every time an idiot 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. Note that I said 'the Jewish state' not 'a Jewish state', for whilst there are dozens of Muslim states in the world, including those where Jews are distinctly unwanted, if not actually verbotten, there is just one Jewish state existing on land that was Jewish long before the birth of Islam. Does anyone take Saudi Arabia to task for its policy on Jews, not Israelis like other Arab countries, but Jews?
So yes Maen Areikat's words are shocking but surely not surprising. But what is really shocking is that anyone is in the slightest bit surprised.
Those of us who have long listened to what Fatah and Hamas leaders have said about the future of the Middle East are not in the slightest bit surprised. Hamas's Charter and its plans for Israel have been well known for many years, I have blogged numerous times about their desire to cleanse Israel of Jews. Fatah/PLO's plans are less well publicised as Western governments have tried to portray these cojoined entities as the reasonable face of Palestinian aspirations. However Fatah/PLO have similar plans for Israel albeit over a longer term. Hamas's Mahmoud Al-Zahar recently declared that Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, or a compromise agreement with the Palestinian Authority, as only a 'first stage' towards the destruction of Israel in its entirety. He asserted that this was the key difference between Hamas and their secular rivals, Fatah.
Every time an idiot 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. Note that I said 'the Jewish state' not 'a Jewish state', for whilst there are dozens of Muslim states in the world, including those where Jews are distinctly unwanted, if not actually verbotten, there is just one Jewish state existing on land that was Jewish long before the birth of Islam. Does anyone take Saudi Arabia to task for its policy on Jews, not Israelis like other Arab countries, but Jews?
So yes Maen Areikat's words are shocking but surely not surprising. But what is really shocking is that anyone is in the slightest bit surprised.
Are many people shocked? The whole reason we're talking about a two-state solution is neither side wants to live with the other. The discrimination against non-Jews in Israel clearly demonstrates the way in which many Israelis deem Palestinians unworthy of their country and the feeling is shared.
ReplyDeleteI'd understand the significance if people were advocating a power-sharing arrangement. But the ambassador's comments are insignificant and, unfashionable though it might be, probably spot on. The best way to secure the future of the two new states IS to accept the reality that we're talking about ethno-national exclusivity here. Not lovey dovey reconciliation.