Tag: UN Vote

Hannukah, 5773/2012: As Israel’s “Stalingrad” approaches, Where are the Allies? And What if, 65 Years Ago, the Arabs Had Accepted Israel?

Download Today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf 

 

Contents:                          

 

 

 

I Stand Ashamed That My Country Voted for the New Nazis: Giulio Meotti, Israel National News, Dec. 2, 2012At the United Nations we are witnessing the creation ex nihilo of a foreign country, which never existed, and accepting the claims of the “Palestinian Arabs,” by giving them the land whose memory kept the Jews together as a people and brought them back to Jerusalem after the Holocaust.

 

Building in Jerusalem: A Strategic Imperative: Prof. Efraim Inbar, BESA Center, December 5, 2012 Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu must ignore the Pavlovian response of the international community against building in Jerusalem, particularly in Area E1.

 

What If the Arabs Had Accepted the Creation Of Israel?: Allan Levine, National Post, Dec 6, 2012Nov. 29, the date of Mahmoud Abbas’ speech to the United Nations last week, has always had special historical significance in the thorny annals of the Middle East.

 

 

On Topic Links

 

 

A Search for God Through Bluegrass and Klezmer: Samuel G. Freedman, The New York Times, Nov. 30, 2012

Pillar of Defense: An Initial Strategic and Military Assessment: Dr. Eitan Shamir, BESA Center, Dec. 4, 2012

A Woman Who Cared: Greer Fay Cashman, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 29, 2012

Bond in Bankruptcy: Mark Steyn, National Review, Dec. 3, 2012

 

 

 

 

ISRAEL, LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS

HANNUKAH, 5773/2012

Baruch Cohen

 

In Memory of Beloved Malca z”l

 

As we celebrate Hannukah today, heavy dark clouds of global racism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism loom over Israel. As we, the Jewish People, welcome the holiday of joy and light, new Hamans rise up against us.

“Hannukah” means, literally, “dedication”. It tells the story of Jewish commitment, bravery and unflinching devotion to the high humanistic values embodied in our Torah, and of the unquenchable flame of Jewish heroism, embodied in the Hannukah story itself.

 

The first Hannukah flame was lit in Jerusalem on the 25th day of Kislev, 164 BCE, elebrating victory by our Maccabee heroes over the Hellenistic oppressors, led by the brutal King Antiochus IV.

 

Eternal Israel, as always, prevailed, and Jerusalem, timeless, endures as our capital, to this day!

 

Parallels to the past are evident today. Once again we encounter hate and incitement against our brave People and State; and once again, despite the dark forces ranged against us, Eternal Israel will prevail!

 

To all CIJR supporters and all people of goodwill, Hag Hannukah Sameach! Hag-HaUrim! Happy Hannukah, Festival of Lights!
 

(Baruch Cohen is CIJR`s Research Chairman)!

 

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

I STAND ASHAMED THAT MY COUNTRY

VOTED FOR THE NEW NAZIS

Giulio Meotti, Israel National News, November 30, 2012

 

At the United Nations we are witnessing the creation ex nihilo of a foreign country, which never existed, and accepting the claims of the “Palestinian Arabs,” by giving them the land whose memory kept the Jews together as a people and brought them back to Jerusalem after the Holocaust.

 

The Western community at the United Nations, including my miserable Italy, just adopted the Nazis’ strategy. Cunning in wickedness, the Germans dangled before their victims the possibility of saving themselves at the expense of other Jews.

 

In this case, the Jews to be sacrified are all of those living in Judea and Samaria, but ultimately it is the entire State of Israel, since a Palestinian State would only arise upon the fall of Israel. I am ashamed that my country voted for the first step towards officially prohibiting Jews or any other faith from living in a certain area, the first since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was jüdenrein, cleansed of Jews. I am ashamed that my country voted for the PLO, an organization of murderers and Holocaust deniers now officially dedicated to the mass deportation of Israel’s Jews.

 

I am ashamed that my country voted for a state that tortures inmates in prisons, that throws political dissidents from the roofs of public buildings, that puts to death human beings simply because they are guilty of apostasy and that will be a combination of corruption, dictatorship, Islamic theology and “Bin-Ladenism.”

 

On September 29, 1938, the Czechoslovak state was truncated and deprived of defensible borders by the “Munich agreement.” Six months later, abandoned by its allies England and France, and bullied by Hitler, Czechoslovakia lay down and died. Like Israel today, the Czechs were accused of “intransigence” and of being “disturbers of the peace.” They were so disheartened that in the end they chose not to fight, but to surrender.

 

“Peace” meant capitulation. Czechoslovakia’s situation in 1938 is in fact similar to Israel’s in 2012. Like Israel’s IDF, the Czechs had one of the strongest armies in Europe. Like Israel, Czechoslovakia was a very young and vibrant state. And like the West pressing Israel to give up its land to the Arabs, the Nazis demanded the annexation of the Sudeten, settled by three million Germans. And the Sudeten mountains, like Israel’s “occupied territories,” were the only position from which the Bohemian plain and the capital Prague was defensible. And does anyone remember how Lord Trenchard got up in the British parliament after Munich and declared that the Czechs didn’t need the Sudeten territories for security? “The best security border,” Trenchard said, “is peace.” Sound familiar?

 

A Palestinian state, to not mention Hamas, is a mortal danger to Israel because it will immediately absorb 700,000 Palestinians who are living in Syria, another 750,000 Palestinians who live in Lebanon and hundreds of thousands of others who will flock to the new state from all over the world. They will settle in villages that overlook Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport, Kfar Saba and Jerusalem.

 

I am ashamed that my country adopted the same method used by the Sudeten Nazis in Czekoslovakia in the late ’30s, destroying the country from within. Yesterday it was then the SS, today it’s the PLO, which murdered at least 1,500 Jews (comparable to 82,000 American fatalities).

 

Who will guarantee that the moment a Palestinian state is declared, the rifles won’t start shooting again? The Italian police? Will bloody attacks be planned against Jews at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? Will the Jewish holy sites – Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hevron and Joseph’s tomb in Nablus – be destroyed by local mobs? Will Jewish areas in eastern Jerusalem be subjected to Arab sniper fire? Will Katyusha rockets start falling on runways at Ben-Gurion Airport or on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway, so that Israel’s economy would simply cease to exist? Will the Hebron Jews be the victims of a new Jihadist pogrom like in 1929?

 

I am ashamed that my country would vote for a state that will conclude treaties with Arab countries and with Iran serving as a tripwire for a pan-Islamic attack to exterminate Israel. I am ashamed that my country would vote for a state where the “Mein Kampf” is a best seller. I am ashamed that my country will be remembered among those who legitimized Palestinian terrorists as “victims,” that tacitly maligned Israel as the villains, letting off the true villains with a single objective: The “final solution” of the Jewish problem. Seventy years ago, in what had become one of the opening acts of the greatest tragedy in European history, Italy betrayed its own Jews. Very few came back from Birkenau.

 

Today, Italy capitulated again in the battle against those who seek to finish the job started by the Nazis. Now that we are approaching Israel’s Stalingrad, where have all the “allies” gone?

 

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist with Il Foglio and the author of the acclaimed book, A New Shoah, that researched the personal stories of Israel’s terror victims (published by Encounter).

 

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

BUILDING IN JERUSALEM: A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE

Prof. Efraim Inbar

BESA Center, December 5, 2012

 

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu must ignore the Pavlovian response of the international community against building in Jerusalem, particularly in Area E1. The fate of the Jewish State depends largely upon the government’s ability to take immediate action to populate the area that links Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim with thousands of Jews.

 

Maaleh Adumim, a settlement of over 40,000 Jews east of Jerusalem, serves as the linchpin in establishing an effective line of defense along the Jordan Valley against aggression from the east. Building a Jewish-populated corridor to Maaleh Adumim will prevent the division of Jerusalem and secure the only safe route via which Israel can mobilize troops from the coast to the Jordan Valley if necessary. Jerusalem’s importance to the Jews is not only historical and religious. Rather, Jerusalem also holds strategic importance in controlling the only highway from the coast of the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan Valley, along which Jews are able to travel with little interference from concentrations of Arab population.

 

Those who object to Jewish presence in Area E1 express concern for Palestinian contiguity, which is a deceptive argument. Free travel between Samaria and Judea can be arranged quite easily by constructing overpasses or tunnels. (Ironically, the Palestinians suggest these arrangements in response to Israeli concerns regarding the Palestinian demand for a corridor between Gaza and Judea that would divide Israel in two.)

 

The main issue, however, is Jerusalem. The Palestinians plan to populate Area E1 with Arabs in order to create demographic contiguity between Samaria and East Jerusalem, thereby facilitating the division of the city. Such a development would also isolate Maaleh Adumim and undermine Israeli claims to the Jordan Valley. The only way to prevent the realization of these Palestinian plans is to settle Jews in Area E1.

 

Many pundits claim that Israel no longer needs the Jordan Valley as a shield against aggression from the east. They argue that the peace treaty with Jordan renders the dangerous threat of the eastern front’s proximity to Israel’s population centers and economic infrastructure a thing of the past. Yet this is a very short-term perspective, motivated by a desire to convince the Israeli public that the Jordan Valley is militarily dispensable. Such a view ignores the immense potential for political upheaval in the Middle East, perceived American weakness, the greater political role of radical Islamists, and the growing pressures upon the Hashemite regime.

 

The destabilization of Hashemite Jordan and Saudi Arabia, an emboldened and more radical Syria, and the re-emergence of the eastern front as a credible threat are not far-fetched scenarios….[And] these armchair strategists overlook the history of military technology, which shows a clear oscillation between the dominance of offensive and defensive measures over the centuries. The belief that the technology of today – which temporarily reduces the importance of topography – will remain unchallenged constitutes a dangerous strategic fallacy. Designing stable defensible borders in accordance with the current, yet transient, state-of-the-art technology and political circumstances is strategically foolish. Therefore, if Israel wants to maintain a defensible border along the Jordan Valley it needs to secure the road that leads there from the coast, via an undivided Jerusalem and via Maaleh Adumim.

 

Netanyahu will be put to the test to prove that his rhetoric about a united Jerusalem and the incorporation of settlement blocs – such as Maaleh Adumim – into Israel has substance. Former American President George W. Bush’s promise to allow the incorporation of settlement blocs is to be capitalized upon in this context. We should also remember that the US has opposed Israeli settlement efforts since 1967 and only rarely did American objections have an impact on Israeli decisions on this issue. Moreover, the Americans can be persuaded to tacitly go along with linking Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem if a clear strategic vision based upon the principle of territorial compromise is presented.

 

While the strategic wisdom of indiscriminately settling the Land of Israel is not compelling, a selective settlement policy focusing on areas within the Israeli consensus, including Maaleh Adumim and the Jordan Valley, can be pursued with little foreign interference. Such a policy should be complemented with the removal of illegal posts located outside the areas of consensus, and even with a gradual freeze in allocations to isolated settlements. Such a policy reflects the preference of a large majority of the Israelis.

 

Area E1 is of vital importance for the political future of Jerusalem and for Israel’s chances to establish a defensible line along its eastern border. It is imperative to build homes for Jews there. Hopefully, Netanyahu will soon send the bulldozers to create vital irreversible facts on the ground.

 

Prof. Efraim Inbar is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

WHAT IF THE ARABS HAD ACCEPTED THE CREATION OF ISRAEL?

Allan Levine

National Post, Dec 6, 2012

 

Nov. 29, the date of Mahmoud Abbas’ speech to the United Nations last week, has always had special historical significance in the thorny annals of the Middle East. On that day in 1947, the United Nations voted in favour of the partition of the British Mandate for Palestine in two — one independent state for the approximately 500,000 Jews, but with a sizable Arab population of 400,000, and one for the 725,000 Arabs and the 10,000 Jews residing in that territory. Jerusalem was to be maintained as an international area.

 

The Jews accepted the partition, while the Arabs did not. Before the UN vote, Jamal al-Husseni, vice-president of the Arab Higher Committee, the Palestinian Arab political organization, had declared to the UN General Assembly: “We are solidly and permanently determined to fight to the last man against the existence in our country of any Jewish state, no matter how small it is. We will drench the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood.” He was true to his word.

 

Now, 65 years later, Mr. Abbas, the president of the Palestinian authority, asked the same august international body, which the Palestinians once rejected, to promote them from their status as observers to a non-member state. The vast majority of UN members were happy to comply. Just as there was dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv in 1947 and months later on May 14, 1948, when the state of Israel declared its independence, there was also dancing on the streets of Ramallah at last week’s diplomatic victory, as hollow as it likely will prove to be….

 

In the long struggle waged between Israelis and Palestinians, history frequently has been manipulated, and no more so than around the pivotal events that took place six and a half decades ago. A case in point: Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” to Israel of Palestinian refugees and their millions of their descendants.

 

The stalemate over this issue comes down to what happened in 1948. In the widely accepted Israeli narrative, the estimated 700,000 Arabs who left the Yishuv (or Jewish settlement and adjacent territories) during the Israeli War of Independence mainly did so of their own volition.

 

In the Palestinian historical narrative, on the other hand, the 1948 war is known as Al-Nakbah — the catastrophe. This alternative view argues that Palestinians were victims of a ruthless Zionist policy of ethnic cleansing, terror and worse….

 

In 1998, a kibbutznik and peace activist by the name of Teddy Katz received his master’s degree from Haifa University for a thesis entitled The Exodus of Arabs from Villages at the Foot of Southern Mount Carmel in 1948. The focal point of the study was the Arab village of Tantura, today the site of one of the best Mediterranean beaches in Israel. The incident in question took place on May 23, 1948, about six weeks after another notorious confrontation between Jewish fighters and Arabs at Deir Yassin, in which a hundred Arabs, some armed, were killed and for which Jewish officials later apologized….

 

Following interviews with Israeli Haganah veterans as well as former Arab villagers (some of whom were young children at the time), Katz concluded that approximately 200 to 250 unarmed Arab men had been murdered, women had been raped, the village looted and the rest of its small population expelled.

 

Once Katz’s controversial findings were published in a newspaper story, the former head of the Haganah unit involved launched a libel suit against Katz. During the proceedings, it was determined that Katz had fabricated evidence to fit his thesis about an Israeli-led massacre. He was forced to write a public apology. (The university revoked his degree; he resubmitted a revised version, however only got a “second class” master’s.) As might be accepted, thereafter, the story of Tantura was regarded as a big lie by Israelis and a true massacre by Palestinians.

 

Who to believe? Ben-Gurion University historian Benny Morris is probably the best authority on the 1948 war….he has aggravated both Israelis and Palestinians with his dogged search for the truth.

 

After considering the Tantura case, he is skeptical that a mass atrocity occurred, though he suspects that Haganah fighters likely did kill as many as 70 unarmed civilians. On the 1948 war overall, he has concluded that there was no general Zionist plan to cleanse the Jewish state of Arabs, though many were expelled. And, when the Arabs left, Israelis made it difficult or impossible for them to return. At the same time, tens of thousands of Palestinians also left before the main hostilities began.

 

As he writes in his 2004 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited : “In the following months, hundreds of thousands [of Palestinian Arabs] fled not under Jewish orders or direct coercion though, to be sure, most sought to move out of harm’s way as Zionist troops conquered town after town. … And most probably believed that they would be returning home in a matter of months if not weeks, perhaps after the Arab armies had crushed Israel.” That miscalculation, as we now fully understand, was to have enormous ramifications….

 

The great “what if” of Middle East history in the 20th century is how events would have unfolded if Arab leaders had not rejected the partition of Palestine, but instead accepted establishment of the state of Israel. There would have been no Six Day-War in 1967, no occupation and settlements, no suicide bombings, no wall, no rockets and no bloodshed. Who knows how many Palestinians would still be living in their ancestral homes? “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole,” Mahmoud Abbas said about the 1947-1948 decision in a rare interview with an Israeli television network he granted last year…..

 

Winnipeg historian Allan Levine’s most recent book, King: William Lyon Mackenzie King: A Life Guide by the Hand of Destiny is now available in paperback.

Top of Page

 

 

 

 

A Search for God Through Bluegrass and Klezmer: Samuel G. Freedman, The New York Times, Nov. 30, 2012—Andy Statman stood in the narrow basement of an Orthodox synagogue improbably wedged among the boîtes and boutiques of Greenwich Village. He wore a plain blue suit and white shirt, and from his waist hung tzitzit, the fringes meant to remind an observant Jew of the 613 commandments.

 

Operation Pillar of Defense: An Initial Strategic and Military Assessment: Dr. Eitan Shamir,

BESA Center, Dec. 4, 2012—Israel’s declared objectives in Operation Pillar of Defense were limited: to cripple Hamas’ military capabilities, restore its deterrence, and return quiet to the communities of the South.

 

A Woman Who Cared: Greer Fay Cashman, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 29, 2012—Founder of the ‘Jerusalem Post’ Funds and a distinguished citizen of Jerusalem, Helen Rossi could get things done, no matter how challenging the situation.

 

Bond in Bankruptcy: Mark Steyn, National Review, Dec. 3, 2012—For some reason, the quadrennial humiliation of the Republican presidential candidate now coincides with the release of the new Bond movie.

 

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S “PALESTINE” VOTE: EUROPEANS, “BLIND IN ONE EYE”, SEE ISRAEL AS “GREATER ISRAEL” — UN VOTE REFLECTS GROWTH  – FROM SPAIN TO  NORWAY –  OF TOXIC ANTI-SEMITISM

Download Today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf 

 

Contents:                          

 

 

Israel’s Settlements and the Europeans: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Dec. 2.2012— Those looking for an explanation for why almost all of Europe backed the Palestinians in the recent vote to upgrade their status at the United Nations are blaming it on Israel’s decision to continue building homes in Jerusalem and its suburbs.

 

Did Israel Lose Europe?: Jonathan Schanzer, Benjamin Weinthal, Foreign Policy, Nov. 30, 2012— There was never much doubt that the U.N. General Assembly would overwhelmingly vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of non-member state on Nov. 29. The big surprise of the event was that a number of key Western European countries did not join the United States and vote against the resolution.

 

Blind in One Eye: Galtung and the Toxic European Left: Robert S. Wistrich, Times of Israel, May 17, 2012— The dark spirit of anti-Western ressentiment and knee-jerk anti-Zionism that has come to characterize a growing sector of Europe’s intellectual left is no secret to seasoned observers of these cultural pathologies.

 

 

On Topic Links

 

 

 

Knee-jerk Anti-Zionism: Tibor Krausz, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2012

Britain: EU Sanctions Against Israel not an Option: Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post  Dec. 4, 2012

The French Connection – To Anti-Semitism: Ari Lieberman, Front Page Magazine, Nov. 29, 2012

Where Would Hezbollah Be Without the EU?: Douglas Murray, Gatestone Institute, Nov. 8, 2012

 

 

 

 

ISRAEL’S SETTLEMENTS AND THE EUROPEANS

Jonathan S. Tobin

Commentary, Dec. 2.2012

 

Those looking for an explanation for why almost all of Europe backed the Palestinians in the recent vote to upgrade their status at the United Nations are blaming it on Israel’s decision to continue building homes in Jerusalem and its suburbs. As reporter Laura Rozen put it in a tweet, “Does Israel really not get how fed up Europe is w/ its settlement policies?” The upshot of this sort of thinking is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fanatical devotion to “Greater Israel” is isolating Israel and forcing even its friends to abandon its cause in international forums.

 

The problem with this thesis is that it is pure bunk….[T]here are a lot of reasons why the Europeans stabbed the Israelis in the back at the UN, among which their objections to “settlements” is by no means inconsiderable. [However], if the Europeans believe that the 1967 lines with land swaps is the formula for peace, it’s hard to understand why they are upset with Israel building in places that everyone knows they would keep under such a plan. After all, does anyone who is actually interested in peace–as opposed to those who think every Jewish home anywhere in the country is an illegal settlement–actually think Israel will abandon 40-year-old Jerusalem neighborhoods or the suburbs that are close to the green line? Far from the Israelis pushing the limits in their quest for settlements, it is the Europeans who are redefining the terms of peace.

 

For Israel’s European critics, “Greater Israel” is no longer all of the West Bank, which even Netanyahu has conceded may be ceded for a real peace deal, nor even retention of an undivided Jerusalem. They are now acting as if any Israeli government that acts as if it is going to hold onto all of the Jewish areas of Jerusalem is a foe of peace. In doing so, they are not only distorting Israel’s position — which is still perfectly compatible with a two-state solution based on the ’67 lines with swaps — but also covering up or ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have refused Israeli offers of a state and now no longer even wish to negotiate.

 

The idea that the Europeans — save for the principled stand of the Czech Republic — have turned on the Israelis solely because of “settlements” is a misnomer. The tilt toward the Palestinians and against Israel is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it the product of Netanyahu’s tenure as prime minister. Virtually any act of Israeli self-defence is treated as impermissible. Nor can one understand the unwillingness of these governments to stand with Israel outside of a context in which anti-Zionism has become the orthodoxy of European intellectuals and the rising tide of anti-Semitism on the continent.

 

Moreover, the decision to back Mahmoud Abbas at the UN has just as much if not more to do with the hope that giving him a shot in the arm will undermine Hamas. This is a monumental misjudgment, since Abbas cannot hope to compete in the long run with the more violent Islamists who run what is already an independent Palestinian state in all but name.

 

Europeans who think isolating Israel in this manner will teach Netanyahu or the Israeli people a lesson are ignoring the realities of the conflict. Though they would divest themselves of almost all of the territories in exchange for an end to the conflict, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have no intention of allowing the West Bank to become another, more dangerous version of Gaza from which Islamist terrorists will launch missiles or terror attacks. A European demand for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines including a divided Jerusalem and the eviction of nearly half a million Jews from their homes to empower a Palestinian entity that won’t negotiate is antithetical to the idea of genuine peace.

 

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

 

DID ISRAEL LOSE EUROPE?

Jonathan Schanzer, Benjamin Weinthal

Foreign Policy, November 30, 2012

 

There was never much doubt that the U.N. General Assembly would overwhelmingly vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of non-member state on Nov. 29. The big surprise of the event was that a number of key Western European countries did not join the United States and vote against the resolution. The Czech Republic was the only European country to vote against the upgrade, and shockingly, the normally staunchly pro-Israeli governments of Germany and Britain decided to abstain. Does this mean that Israel has lost Europe?

 

Germany's surprising decision, in the eleventh hour, to shift from opposing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's bid to abstaining on it was reportedly tied to the question of Israel's ongoing construction of settlements in the West Bank — a recent source of contention in European capitals. Germany appears to have taken this opportunity to address the conflict on the world stage.

 

This decision was especially shocking to Israelis given Germany's historical relationship with the Jewish state. Chancellor Angela Merkel declared in a 2008 speech before the Knesset that she supported Israel's right to defend itself and that only the Israelis and Palestinians — without external interference — could negotiate a two-state solution.

 

"Every German chancellor before me has shouldered Germany's special historical responsibility for Israel's security," Merkel said then. "This historical responsibility is part of my country's raison d'être. For me as German chancellor, therefore, Israel's security will never be open to negotiation."  The Federal Republic has based a large chunk of its devotion to Israel's security on the notion of Wiedergutmachung, or reparations for the German crimes against European Jewry during the Holocaust.

 

Although Germany likes to present itself as Israel's strongest ally in Europe, the relationship has often been shaky. Take the example of Christoph Heusgen, Merkel's national security advisor and Middle East point man, who in 2009 — a year after the chancellor's speech before the Knesset — sought to convince U.S. envoys to weaken Washington's opposition to the United Nations' Goldstone Report, which alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza during that year's Operation Cast Lead.

 

According to a WikiLeaked cable from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin at the time, Heusgen "thought [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu needed 'to do more' in order [to] bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. With Palestinians in East Jerusalem getting notices from Israeli authorities that their houses will be destroyed, it would be 'suicide' for President Abbas to move under the current circumstances."

 

The cable continued: "Heusgen said he could not fathom why Netanyahu did not understand this. He suggested pressuring Netanyahu by linking favorable UNSC [U.N. Security Council] treatment of the Goldstone Report to Israel committing to a complete stop in settlement activity."

 

In 2010, Merkel and Netanyahu had a heated telephone exchange over the settlements issue, and the relationship further frayed over Germany's decision this year to upgrade the Palestinian Authority's representation in Berlin to that of a full diplomatic mission with an ambassador.

 

Germany's U.N. abstention on Nov. 29 may also have been driven by domestic calculations. Specifically, Merkel may inherit the Social Democratic Party (SPD) as a coalition partner in a new government in elections in late 2013. This month, SPD officials hosted representatives of Palestine's ruling Fatah party at the SPD's Berlin headquarters and published a joint declaration affirming a "strategic partnership" between the two parties.

 

Meanwhile, France's relations with Israel have been uneasy for more than a decade. Famously, in 2001, France's ambassador to Britain, Daniel Bernard, called Israel "that shitty little country." More recently, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy offended the Israelis with his famous hot-mic fiasco at the 2011 G-20 meeting, in which he told U.S. President Barack Obama he couldn't stand Netanyahu (and Obama concurred).

 

During Sarkozy's tenure, France was also a vocal proponent of upgrading the Palestinian status at UNESCO. When the Paris-based UNESCO granted the Palestinians member-state status, U.S. law compelled the Obama administration to withhold its $80 million annual contribution to the organization. Washington registered its displeasure with the move in no uncertain terms. As State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated, the vote was "regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East."

 

Sarkozy's successor, François Hollande, did not let the financial blow to this Paris-based organization get in the way of his support for the Palestinians at the United Nations. Hollande has made clear that the settlement issue is a priority for his government. "It erodes the building of trust between the sides and constitutes an obstacle to a just peace, based on a two-state solution," said France's Foreign Ministry in a statement this month.

 

In a late-October meeting with Netanyahu in Paris, Hollande said that the two countries had "divergences on occupation, which we want to see halted." Although Hollande has played his cards close to the vest, he announced this week that he would support Abbas's bid. His position against the Jewish state was particularly startling given the recent uptick in anti-Semitic violence that has rocked France in recent years, forcing Paris and Jerusalem to jointly deal with this disturbing trend.

 

With France pushing for Palestinian statehood and Germany largely sitting out the fight, other European governments soon cast their votes in favor of Abbas's bid too. According to one European diplomat well versed in Spain's foreign policy, Hollande capitalized on the weak Spanish economy to push Madrid to vote for the PLO's upgrade….Spain is [also] attempting to obtain a seat on the U.N. Security Council and that the vote may have been a way to court favor from Arab countries.

 

Israel could once count on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's staunch support, but this has given way to successor Mario Monti's cold shoulder. Monti's support for the Palestinian bid was an about-face from Italy's position when Abbas attempted a similar maneuver one year ago.

 

(As for the now-isolated Czechs, Prague's decision to veto the PLO's move came as no surprise. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has dubbed noble-born Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg the "Zionist prince" for his support during Operation Cast Lead.)

 

Israel's brief war against Hamas in Gaza this month may also have had an impact on EU decision-makers. Faced with the PLO's deepening irrelevance and the growing potency of Hamas and its Iranian military arsenal on Israel's southern border, Israeli officials say that the Europeans may have wanted to give the nonviolent Abbas a moment in the sun. In other words, they wished to demonstrate approval for bureaucratic and legal strategies over the brutal violence of Abbas's rivals in Gaza.

 

So, after the better part of a decade of diplomacy between PLO embassies and their host governments from Latin America to the Levant, Abbas won his diplomatic upgrade….

 

In fairness, Israel always faced an uphill battle in Europe, where Muslim populations are on the rise and pro-Palestinian sentiments continue to gain traction. From the EU's perspective, Israel's long-standing recalcitrance over settlements and the rise of Hamas probably made support for Abbas inevitable.

 

But for Netanyahu to find himself all alone, with only a reluctant partner in Washington and seven other countries by his side, must surely have come as a shock.

 

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

 

BLIND IN ONE EYE: GALTUNG AND THE TOXIC EUROPEAN LEFT

Robert S. Wistrich

Times of Israel, May 17, 2012

 

The dark spirit of anti-Western ressentiment and knee-jerk anti-Zionism that has come to characterize a growing sector of Europe’s intellectual left is no secret to seasoned observers of these cultural pathologies. The world-renowned 82-year-old Norwegian Professor Johan Galtung – who over fifty years ago founded Oslo’s International Peace Research Institute – is only the most recent prime exhibit of this syndrome.

 

Widely recognized as the “father” of international peace studies, Galtung has long execrated the United States as an imperialist nation of killers, exploiters and torturers, responsible for most of the world’s evils. The much-traveled white-haired professor, in many ways the embodiment of European elitist anti-Americanism, has more recently lavished his self-righteous indignation on Israel (the “little Satan,” as the Iranian Ayatollahs fondly call it), and seems to have enthusiastically embraced the notion of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

 

Among Galtung’s most recent claims has been the assertion that the massacre last summer in Norway of 77 young people by Anders Behring Breivik may have been ordered by the Israeli Mossad. He was even quoted as saying, “It will be interesting to read the [Norwegian] police report on Israel, during the trial.”

 

If that blood libel were not enough, he bizarrely linked Breivik’s murderous actions to the King David Hotel bombing of the British Administration’s nerve-center in Palestine by the Irgun in July 1946. The only vague connection between these two totally distinct events is that they both occurred on July 22. But for the distinguished “sociologist,” the link evidently lies in sinister Zionist-masonic machinations and an endemic terrorist blood-lust among Jews.

 

Galtung, an iconic figure in the Norwegian and international left, has not hesitated to recommend that we should all look again (more sympathetically) at ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” one of the most notorious anti-Semitic texts of the 20th century. Reading the ‘Protocols’ apparently makes Galtung think above all of Goldman Sachs, the giant international investment bank with an unmistakably Jewish name, and the long tentacles of “Jewish” finance-capital. In this context, he airily dismisses the notion that the ‘Protocols” were a concoction of Tsarist Russian anti-Semites. After all, how could mere forgers and Russian police agents possibly predict, over a century ago, what is supposedly happening before our very eyes!?

 

Galtung obviously regards the USA as the contemporary living embodiment of the “Protocols of Zion” scenario displayed in vivid Technicolor. “Six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” he has written — including virtually all the major TV networks, film studios, publishers and top journalists. Even the non-Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch – a favorite target of anti-Semites worldwide – is on his list, since many of those who work for him are (according to the Norwegian professor) “fanatically pro-Israel.”

 

It is worth noting that a major source for these and other bigoted conspiracy-mongering assertions by Galtung is the deceased American neo-Nazi and white racist supremacist, William Pierce, founder of the “National Alliance.”

 

Galtung, who last week told Haaretz that he is open to all hypotheses on such questions, did not fail to imply that Jews had a historic responsibility for the pogromist assaults directed against them, since they had lent money in the past to indebted peasants; and, he added, even Auschwitz had two sides, since Jews in Weimar Germany allegedly held key positions — which meant that “anti-Semitism could have been predicted.” Ignorance, dogmatic obtuseness and sheer bigotry echo from these statements in a truly toxic mix.

 

Some Norwegian academics and fans of Galtung’s “peace studies” research have professed mild shock and bewilderment at this tissue of neo-Nazi, racist and anti-Semitic rubbish pouring out from the mouth of such a prominent and respected leftist guru. But this astonishment seems thoroughly misplaced…[T]here is a well-entrenched tradition of such anti-Jewish bigotry on the left from the beginnings of European Socialism until the present day.

 

Long before Galtung, many left-wing radicals embraced the grossly simplistic view that Jews were the driving-force behind Wall Street, the big banks, international finance-capital, global exploitation and predatory imperialism. Moreover, during the past 40 years it is leftist intellectuals who have often been the spearhead of fashionable “anti-Zionist” conspiracy theories and pernicious efforts to equate Israel with the evils of apartheid, racism, colonialism, fascism and even Nazism.

 

In the last decade we have, for example, seen a growing list of European and even American academics, artists and intellectuals (some of them Jewish and ex-Israeli) join this bandwagon….

Galtung cannot, unfortunately, be dismissed merely as one more senile bigot and ultra-leftist crank. The recipient of many university honors and prizes, his remarks inevitably attract attention and are only a slightly more extreme version of a proliferating European-wide sickness. A long-time admirer of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, Saddam Hussein and other “leftist” totalitarian tyrants, Professor Galtung’s “peace” orientation in the name of human rights has proven all-too-popular in Western as well as Third World academic circles. In the Arab-Islamic world he would, of course, be considered mainstream, even “moderate.”…

 

(Professor Robert S Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

 

 

The French Connection – To Anti-Semitism: Ari Lieberman, Front Page Magazine, Nov. 29, 2012—When it comes to the Jews, the French have a long, checkered history of treachery. French anti-Semitism is well known and deeply embedded in French culture. It therefore comes as no surprise that France will likely be the first major Western power to recognize Palestinian statehood, according to a statement released by the French Foreign Ministry.

 

Where Would Hezbollah Be Without the EU?: Douglas Murray, Gatestone Institute, November 8, 2012—The EU has been here before. During the same period they came up with their false wall-of-separation within Hezbollah, they they did the same thing with Hamas. The fiction disappeared in Europe because it was no longer possible to allow a group to operate which blew up buses full of civilians.

 

Knee-jerk Anti-Zionism: Tibor Krausz, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2012—Karl Marx thought he had the Jews figured out. “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? – Huckstering. What is his worldly God? – Money,” the patron saint of communism opined in his 1844 polemic “On the Jewish Question.” He went on to lament the way Christians had fallen prey in their habits to the pecuniary obsessions of those greedy Semites.

 

Britain: EU Sanctions Against Israel not an Option: Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 4, 2012—As country after country summoned their Israeli ambassadors in protest of settlement building plans, British Foreign Secretary William Hague clarified Tuesday that European sanctions against Israel were not an option.

 

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

PROFILES IN COWARDICE, AND FARCE: U.N., EUROPE, U.S. ON G.A. VOTE, PALESTINIAN ZERO-SUM “HISTORIOGRAPHY”

Download Today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf 

 

Contents:                          

 

Israel’s Response to UN Recognition of Palestine: Increased Settlements Everywhere: Jewish Press, December 2nd, 2012— “The Palestinian Authority’s one-sided step at the UN constitutes a gross violation of the agreements that have been signed with the State of Israel; accordingly, the Government of Israel rejects the UN General Assembly decision.”

 

The U.N. Vote on Palestine: Profiles in Cowardice: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2012

—Last week's vote to extend non-member observer status to the Palestinians at the United Nations was a virtual primer on what is wrong with the U.N., the European Union, the Palestinian Authority and the United States when it comes to the Middle East.

 

Zero-Sum Historiography: The Palestinian Assault Upon History: Paul Merkley, The Bayview Review, Nov 26th, 2012—A key to understanding the duel that is going on today between the State of Israel and its local enemy the “Palestinians” is to be found in the motto that governed Lewis Carroll’s “Wonderland” – that words can mean anything you want them to.

 

On Topic Links

 

 

The Legal Impossibility of Limited Palestinian Statehood: J. Sekulow & M. Clark, Washington Post, Nov. 28, 2012

Rebutting Palestine’s Illegal UN Push for Statehood that Divides Jerusalem, Attacks Israel: Skip Ash ,American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), November 28, 2012

Israel Should Let the PA Collapse: Elad Benari, Israel National News, Dec. 2, 2012

UN Never Misses an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity: Deborah Danan, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2, 2012

Europe Once Again Shows that Palestinian Violence Pays: Evelyn Gordon, Commentary, Dec.3, 2012

Legal Implication of the United Nations Resolution on Palestine: Alan Dershowitz, Algemeiner, December 2, 2012 

 

 

 

 

ISRAEL’S RESPONSE TO UN RECOGNITION OF PALESTINE:
INCREASED SETTLEMENTS EVERYWHERE

Jewish Press, December 2nd, 2012

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, today [Dec. 2] made the following remarks at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting:

 

“The response to the attack on Zionism and the State of Israel must reinforce and underscore the implementation of the settlement plan in all areas in which the Government decides regarding settlement.

 

“These are not my words. These are the words of the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and this is the language of the Cabinet’s 1975 decision in the wake of the UN decision that equated Zionism with racism. Today we are building and we will continue to build in Jerusalem and in all areas that are on the map of the strategic interests of the State of Israel.

 

“The Palestinian Authority’s one-sided step at the UN constitutes a gross violation of the agreements that have been signed with the State of Israel; accordingly, the Government of Israel rejects the UN General Assembly decision.”

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

THE U.N. VOTE ON PALESTINE: PROFILES IN COWARDICE

Jennifer Rubin

Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2012

 

Last week's vote to extend non-member observer status to the Palestinians at the United Nations was a virtual primer on what is wrong with the U.N., the European Union, the Palestinian Authority and the United States when it comes to the Middle East.

 

One hardly needs to note that the U.N.'s Israel obsession, which takes up more of its time and elicits more Human Rights council resolutions than any issue or country on the planet, comes at a time the body can't bring itself to move against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, religious oppression of Christians in the Middle East or, goodness gracious, anything regarding the authoritarian revanchism in Georgia. Nothing to see there. Keep moving on. (This, by the way, is the "international community" in all its glory that President Obama so diligently courts.)

 

Next, let's look at the ineptitude of the Obama administration (and our ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice) in failing to convince European allies to vote against the Palestinian Authority's phony statehood resolution and abrogation of its treaty resolutions.

 

Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, "There was never much doubt that the U.N. General Assembly would overwhelmingly vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of non-member state on Nov. 29. The big surprise of the event was that a number of key Western European countries did not join the United States and vote against the resolution. The Czech Republic was the only European country to vote against the upgrade, and shockingly, the normally staunchly pro-Israeli governments of Germany and Britain decided to abstain."

 

You can attribute this sorry state of affairs in large part to the pusillanimous governments of Europe. For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is wary of her potential coalition partner and pro-Palestinian Social Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Schanzer notes, "According to one European diplomat well versed in Spain's foreign policy, [French president Francois] Hollande capitalized on the weak Spanish economy to push Madrid to vote for the PLO's upgrade. . . . In short, the diplomat noted that Spain had joined France as part of a bloc of countries — including Italy and Portugal — in exchange for France's protection in upcoming rounds of austerity talks. The diplomat also noted that Spain is attempting to obtain a seat on the U.N. Security Council and that the vote may have been a way to court favor from Arab countries."

 

Which brings us to the U.S. and Ambassador Rice. She could only persuade the Czech Republic, some Pacific island countries, Canada and Panama? That's the extent of her diplomatic prowess? (I am certain that the Canadian government needed no convincing on this score, having frequently and courageously defended the Jewish State.)

 

It is unclear if the Obama administration, and Rice specifically, made any effort whatsoever to round up some "no" votes. It is quite likely the United States never communicated to Europeans and other allies (e.g. Australia) that the United States would look unfavorably on their abstentions. Apparently our "improved" relations with allies under Obama don't allow us to ask for anything or get anything of any consequence. Should she still get the nomination for secretary of state, Rice should be grilled on why the results were so abysmal.

 

Last and least is the Palestinian Authority. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams writes that "the political failure of the Palestinian Authority which is to say of the Fatah Party and of the PLO against Hamas is significant. Since Arafat's death in 2004, the leadership group has generally failed to win the 2006 elections, to prevent Hamas from taking Gaza, to develop a new generation of uncorrupted and popular candidates, and to produce the underpinnings of a state. Such institutional and economic progress as has been made has largely been the work of Salam Fayyad, the PA prime minister, who is not even a member of Fatah and is deeply unpopular within its ranks." All the PA can muster is a relatively meaningless declaration that changes nothing, although it neatly sums up the endemic cynicism of the Arab countries, which would rather sponsor empty resolutions than help improve the lives of Palestinians or promote a true peace between Arabs and Jews in the region….

 

Europeans' animosity toward Israel is rising, unchecked by the inept Obama administration. The PA is a corrupt, undemocratic relic that neither wants peace nor has the ability to make necessary compromises. And naturally, the current status of the Middle East, in the eyes of the U.N. General Assembly, is Israel's fault. Israel's building announcement is deemed to be a "risk to peace." With a straight face the White House intones that such a step "makes it harder to resume direct talks, achieve a 2-state solution." We're beyond farce now when it comes to the sanctimonious tut-tutting of Israel.

 

Oh, and the centrifuges are spinning in Iran, where the mullahs understandably are unimpressed by the United States and the "international community."

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

ZERO-SUM HISTORIOGRAPHY:
THE PALESTINIAN ASSAULT UPON HISTORY

Paul Merkley

The Bayview Review, Nov 26th, 2012

 

A key to understanding the duel that is going on today between the State of Israel and its local enemy the “Palestinians” is to be found in the motto that governed Lewis Carroll’s “Wonderland” – that words can mean anything you want them to.

To begin with: we note the universal use of the term “President” or “President of Palestine” or “President  of the Palestine Authority” ahead of the name Mahmoud Abbas.

 

Yet Mahmoud Abbas himself has absolutely no right under the Basic Law of Palestine to refer to himself as President of anything. The term of office to which he was elected by democratic vote ran out over four years ago. The office is vacant, and if constitutionality meant anything in Palestinian circles he should be judged a usurper; and if legitimacy meant anything in our media or in the minds of our own rulers, he should have been shown the door long ago.  It is exactly as though Paul Martin were still strutting around as Prime Minister of Canada or George W. Bush as President of the United States.

 

It was not Abbas’s party (Fatah) but Hamas  that won the mandate of January, 2006, after which the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, was appointed Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority by the President (February, 2006.) But the ensuing round of assassinations of Hamas figures by Fatah figures and vice versa led Hamas’ leaders to conclude that more could be gained by quitting Ramallah, the administrative capital pro tem of Palestine, seizing all of Gaza,  liquidating the leading Fatah figures there, and proclaiming  themselves to be the rightful rulers of Palestine.

 

Haniyeh continues to call himself Prime Minister of Palestine although much of our media is under the impression that Gaza is a sovereign entity or at least a Province and that Haniyeh is Prime Minister (or something) of that. He has no more right to any of his titles than Abbas has to the title of President, as the tenure of the  Parliament elected in 2006 has also run out.

 

This embarrassing truth is never hinted at by our governments – not by the government of Canada, not by the Government of the United States, and, most incongruously of all, not by the government of Israel.  Our elected politicians go on wining and dining “President Abbas” out of a Machiavellian calculation that if anything is ever to be rescued from the long-collapsed Peace Process we have to pretend to have a “Partner for Peace” that once got himself elected.

 

It is all one patronizing fantasy – this notion of an emergent Palestinian democracy, embodied in the courageous, beleaguered leadership of the Palestine Authority. It is Orwellian double-think, kept alive by the agreement among media, politicians and opinion-elites that titles can have whatever meaning it is convenient to give to them so long as the cause of achieving peace through democracy  is served.

 

In pretending not to notice the illegitimacy of the Abbas regime we are stooping to acceptance of the congenital contempt for historical fact that has bedeviled the political history of Islam since Muhammad proclaimed his message nearly fourteen centuries ago.

 

On September 13, 1993, a splendid ceremony was held on the White House Lawn to praise the government of Israel and the leaders of the terrorist group, Palestine Liberation Organization, as heroic peacemakers, worthy of inclusion among history’s noblest spirits. To meet the needs of this unprecedented occasion, the records of Yasir Arafat and the records of his closest companions had to be moved off the shelves, their origins as terrorists quickly forgotten. If the past was to be referred to at all, the emphasis was to be on redemption.

 

For example, the freedom fighter,  Abu Mazen, who coordinated fund-raising for the Munich Olypmic massacre, was henceforth to be referred to by us (but not by the Palestinians themselves) by a civilian name, Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas was quickly redesigned as  a family man, dedicated from his beginnings to diplomacy, a serious, benign scholarly gentleman, whose greatest love was the study of history. Abbas, does, indeed, hold an advanced degree in History. He earned it at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, designed by the Soviet Union for the advanced training of foreign revolutionaries. (Since 1992, this University has been called the People’s Friendship University of Russia.)

 

While at PLU, Mahmoud Abbas wrote a doctoral thesis, The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement, later published (but only in Arabic) by a Jordanian publisher under a title that (we are told) would read in English: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism. Mazen’s book presents a deconstructionist understanding of the Holocaust, beginning with challenge of the generally accepted numbers of victims.

 

“Many scholars,” notes Dr. Abbas, “have debated the figure of six million figure of victims of the Holocaust and reached stunning conclusions fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand… It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [to six million] … in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism.” There were, in any case, no gas chambers.

 

This demonstration of vagueness and obfuscation about matters long settled by scholarship tells us everything we need to know about Abbas’s qualification to be called an historian. Yet, the official BCC News Profile describes Abbas as “A highly intellectual man, Abbas studied law in Egypt before doing a Ph.D. in Moscow. He is the author of several books,” while the New York Times has described him as “a lawyer and historian.”

 

Nowadays, Abbas’s scholarly and polemical skills go to vilification of Israelis and Jews. He sets his sheepskin up front as token of his scholarly soundness while he belittles the history of Israel and the Jews and demonstrates that nobody ever really intended there to be a Jewish  state. As diplomacy dedicated to the Peace Process has gone into deep freeze, Abbas  has all the time in the world to badmouth Israel, its undeserved reputation for liberalism, for education, for research for science. Mahmoud Abbas and other principal figures in the Palestine Authority use the prestige of their titles to pursue in international media and at the UN a two-sided campaign of aggrandizement of Palestine and belittlement of Israel. Abbas’s scholarly labours have led him to the conclusion that the so-called State of Israel is not fit to be a neighbour of Palestine.

 

The latest breakthrough in the  PA’s propaganda offensive has been its success in establishing in the minds of our scholars, our  leaders of opinion and, with truly resounding success, our churchmen  the counter-factual theorem that Palestine is a ancient and distinguished while Israel is a fraud.

Here is the syllogism:

 

  • Palestine is real; Palestine has always been here; the Palestinian People have always been here.
  • Israel is not real. Israel is an invention of the mid-Twentieth century AD, the product of European imperialism, foisted upon the world by a Zionist conspiracy in control of international diplomacy.

The contempt for Zionism in the company of opinion elites in the West, where all lines of argument that belittle Israel’s right to exist are accepted as authentic without examination, explains the great success that Abbas and his fellow Palestinian statesmen have encountered with this syllogism.

 

Dr. Abbas recognizes the possibilities for creative minds created by his contempt for history. His hope is to turn the tables on the tedious textbooks, to establish in all minds the politically correct notion that it is Palestine that is ancient, that has the historical pedigree, and Israel that is without pedigree.

 

For example: Palestinian Authority TV News hews consistently to the PA policy of denying the history of Jewish presence in Jerusalem and in particular the existence at any time of a Jewish Temple.  In a report about Israel’s excavations on the Temple Mount exposing part of the Western Wall, PA TV stated:

 

“There’s [an Israeli] race against the clock to complete the excavations in search of [Jerusalem's]  Temple that exists only in the minds of radical organizations ….[The Israelis] falsify historical facts by linking them to Jewish history, the traces of which don’t exist in our land.”

 

Israel’s excavations of the Western Wall have nothing to do with any archeological project, PA authorities declaim, but are cover for a plot to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque from below.

 

Palestinian “historiography” (if sheer assertion without reference to any documentary or archeological evidence can be dignified by such a term) asserts that until the day before yesterday the Jews, or Israelis, call them what you will, never resided in this area, never had a Kingdom, never had a temple….Among recent lunatic examples are:

 

“Moses was a Muslim who led Muslims in Exodus from Egypt, says a PA university lecturer on PA/ Israel's conquest of the Land of Israel defined as ‘The first Palestinian liberation through armed struggle to liberate Palestine" (April 2, 2012); and "There never was a Temple… for the Jews …. [says PA Mufti.] They [the Jews] want to say or suggest that this place (Temple Mount) was once, according to their claim, a Temple. However, in truth, there never was a Temple in any period, nor was there, at any time, any place of worship for the Jews or others at the Al-Aqsa Mosque site (built on the Temple Mount, 705 CE).” Palestinian TV, Jan. 5, 2012.]

 

In order to keep this free-floating dogma unsullied, Muslim religious authorities on the Temple  Mount have been hauling away to garbage dumps the debris resulting from their building projects on the site. When Israeli scholars find and display artifacts clearly illustrating the presence of the People of Israel or of the Temple of the Jews, Palestinian authorities simply claim them as proofs of “Palestinian” presence.

 

Keen as they are on siding with the victims of Israeli aggression, our cultural elites and, most distressing of all, our church leaders today indulge these knuckle-dragging assertions about Palestine and Palestine’s history for tactical purposes: they believe that polemical solidarity with the Palestinian victims will make it possible for us to keep Palestine’s “elected leaders” in the great cause of moving towards the Day of Peace.

 

Why should we care about these assertions about long-gone days? We should care because all this double-think is doing great damage to truth. We know that no historical commentary is ever free of self-serving bias. Bias occurs because of the human weakness of the historians and the sources they deal with. But in our western tradition no party ever justifies or admits distortion of historical fact for political advantage – although it can happen easily enough. On the other side, the Muslim side, distortion of historical fact has always been done boldly and on the grandest scale and always with impunity. This is because the methods of history have never developed on Islamic soil. The Qur’an  itself is based upon the most blatant manipulation of history…..

 

Top of Page

 

 

 

 

UN Never Misses an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity: Deborah Danan, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 12, 2, 2012—November 29, 2012 marked the day that should have been the 65th birthday of Palestine. But because of the Arab world’s rejection of the UN partition resolution in 1947, no one was blowing out the birthday candles last Thursday.

 

Europe Once Again Shows that Palestinian Violence Pays: Evelyn Gordon, Commentary, Dec.3, 2012—Just in case there were any doubts, last week provided conclusive proof: Yes, Palestinian violence pays. And the so-called “enlightened” countries–those Western states who claim to deplore violence and favor the peaceful resolution of conflicts–are the very ones who will reward violence the most.

 

The Legal Impossibility of Limited Palestinian Statehood at the U.N.: Jordan Sekulow and Matthew Clark, Washington Post, Nov. 28, 2012—On Thursday, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will again seek statehood at the United Nations. While this form of “statehood” will not confer U.N. member state status to the “Palestinian entity,” it could fundamentally reshape the Middle East, undermine international law, inhibit peace, and violate Israel’s right to exist.

 

Rebutting Palestine’s Illegal UN Push for Statehood that Divides Jerusalem, Attacks Israel: Skip Ash, American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), November 28, 2012— The PA's attempt to achieve at the UN what it has been unable—or unwilling—to achieve via direct talks with Israel violates a whole host of prior agreements with Israel entered into freely by Palestinian officials. As such, the PA is openly and notoriously breaching its international agreements with Israel, itself a violation of international law.

 

Israel Should Let the PA Collapse: Elad Benari, Israel National News, Dec. 2, 2012—Israel should let the Palestinian Authority collapse, particularly in the wake of its unilateral statehood bid at the United Nations.

 

Legal Implication of the United Nations Resolution on Palestine: Alan Dershowitz, Algemeiner, December 2, 2012 — The General Assembly vote declaring that Palestine, within the pre-1967 borders, is a “state”, at least for some purposes, would have nasty legal implications, if it were ever to be taken seriously by the international community.  

 

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: ABBAS, IN 95TH MONTH OF 4-YEAR TERM, GOES TO UN FOR NON-STATE “STATE”

Download Today's Isranet Daily Briefing.pdf      

 

Contents:          

 

Netanyahy: UN Can't Force Israel To Compromise On Security: Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 29, 2012— “…there is no force in the world able to sever the thousands-year connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel,"

 

UN: Palestine is Now a Non-Member State; Reality: Palestine Will Continue to be a Non-Existent State: Barry Rubin, PJMedia, Nov. 29, 2012—The Palestinians’ leaders have long believed that an intransigent strategy coupled with some outside force—Nazi Germany, the USSR, weaning the West away from Israel—will miraculously grant them total victory. They aren’t going to change course now but that route leads not forward but in circles.

 

Round 2 of ‘Israel, Palestine at the ICC’: Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, Nov.15, 2012— Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, so it could be difficult or impossible to actually conduct a case against Israel’s citizens without its government’s cooperation….It is far from clear that the ICC would make a final decision to indict any Israelis, in light of the fact that Israel has completed a process of investigations of its soldiers’ actions in Operation Cast Lead.

 

"Palestine” Does Not Qualify as a “State": Rick Richman, Commentary, Nov.13, 2012— Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state “should possess the following qualifications”: (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population.

 

Two Palestinian Goals At UN: Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, Palestinian Media Watch, Nov. 29, 2012 — First, all lands that are disputed and whose future must be negotiated according to the Oslo Accords, the PA wants declared Palestinian "occupied territory." Second, they claim that UN recognition would change the status of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons to legitimate freedom fighters and prisoners of war.

 

On Topic Links

 

Misguided UN Bid: JPost Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 27, 2012

Accomplices in a Campaign to Annihilate A UN Member: Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2012

European Votes on PA Statehood Bid Fall Into Place: Jerusalem Post, Reuters, Nov. 28, 2012

Palestine’s Muddled Statehood Strategy: Robert M. Danin, Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 28, 2012

The UN Vote, the ICC and the Riddle of Palestinian Intentions: Haviv Rettig Gur, Times of Israel, Nov. 29, 2012

Who Wants a Palestinian State?: Moshe Dann, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 26, 2012

 

 

NETANYAHU: UN CAN'T FORCE ISRAEL TO COMPROMISE ON SECURITY

Herb Keinon

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 29, 2012

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "Israel's hand is always extended in peace, but a Palestinian state will not be established without recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, without an end-of-conflict declaration, and without true security arrangements that will protect Israel and its citizens.

 

    "I remember the international community's applause that the government of Israel received when it decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. We got applause and then rocket fire. We left Gaza, and Iran entered, exactly like what happened in Lebanon.

 

    "It does not matter how many will vote against us, there is no force in the world that will cause me to compromise on Israeli security and there is no force in the world able to sever the thousands-year connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel,"

Top of Page

 

 

UN: PALESTINE NOW  NON-MEMBER STATE; 

REALITY: PALESTINE STILL A NON-EXISTENT STATE

Barry Rubin

PJMedia, November 29, 2012

Twenty-four years ago, almost to the day, in 1988, I stood in a large hall in Algeria and saw Yasir Arafat declare the independence of a Palestinian state. It was forty-one years, almost to the day in 1947, when the UN offered a Palestinian state. Twelve years ago Israel and the United States officially offered a Palestinian state as part of a compromise deal in the Camp David summit of 2000….

 

Now the UN will probably give Palestine the status of a non-member state….There are two ways to respond to the General Assembly’s likely vote to so designate a state of Palestine. One of them is outrage at the absurdity of how the international system behaves. The other would be to dismiss the gesture as meaningless, even more than that, as something that will even further delay the day that a real, functioning state comes into existence….

 

In 1993, the PLO made an agreement whose very basis was that a Palestinian state would only come into existence as a result of a deal made with Israel. Instead, the Palestinian side refused to make such a compromise and broke its commitments repeatedly. The ultimate result was Yasir Arafat’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state with its capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem both at the 2000 Camp David meeting and a few months later when President Bill Clinton made a better, and final, offer….

 

So despite Israel taking risks and making concessions, the Palestinian Authority rejected peace. Today the same group is going to be recognized by the UN as a regime governing a state. Moreover, this is a body that is relentlessly begging Hamas, a group that openly calls for genocide against both Israel and Jews, to join it….

 

The second issue is whether it will really matter. Yes it entails symbolism, yes it will convince the Palestinians they are getting something when the course they have followed ensures they get pretty close to nothing….To the extent that “President” Mahmoud Abbas convinced West Bank Palestinians that they have achieved some great victory it takes off the pressure for violent action or support for Hamas there. Of course, there is no popular pressure for a negotiated solution. Indeed, I’m not aware of a single Palestinian Authority official who has even claimed for cosmetic purposes that the reason for this move at the UN is to press Israel to compromise or a deal. Its purpose is to make Abbas’s regime look good and be a step forward toward total victory, a Palestinian state unbound by commitments that could be used as a base for wiping out Israel.

 

But that doesn’t mean it will work. The next morning, the residents of the Palestinian Authority will still be exactly where they are now….You should also understand that in Israel there are no illusions about this whole charade. Few think that a real deal is possible with either of the current Palestinian leaderships…and the UN action will make the public even more opposed to concessions….

 

At any rate, the UN General Assembly’s action neither contributes to peace nor is it a just decision. Nevertheless, once again we have a case of symbolism over substance.  This is the same General Assembly that received Yasir Arafat as a man of peace in 1974 at the very moment he was masterminding terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and the following year voted for a resolution that Zionism was racism. Can one really say things have gotten worse?

 

During the period since then, Israel has survived and prospered. Its enemies in the Middle East have undergone constant instability and economic stagnation (except for those small in population and large in oilfields). The supposed springtime of democracy has quickly turned into just another authoritarian era of repression and disastrous policies that ultimately weaken those countries and make their people poor and miserable. What else is new?

 

Ignoring that history and the contemporary reality, some Western countries are voting for this resolution or abstaining for a variety of reasons: cheap public relations’ gain among Arabs and Muslims; a belief that this will shore up the Palestinian “moderates” against the radicals, or that it will encourage the non-existent peace process.

 

What it will do, however, is to sink the Palestinian leadership even deeper into an obsession with intransigence in practice and paper victories that mean nothing in the real world. And, yes, that’s what the result of this UN vote will be. And of course no matter what is said publicly about unity between the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip there will be no change on that front either.

 

In 1939, the British offered the Arab states and Palestinian leadership a deal in which they would be handed all of the Palestine mandate as an Arab state if they accepted a few simple conditions, including a ten year transition period. Despite the pleas of some Arab rulers, the Palestinians said no, believing a German victory would give them everything soon. Almost precisely 65 years ago the UN endorsed the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinians said, no believing that the military efforts of themselves and their allies would give them everything soon.

 

The Palestinians’ leaders have long believed that an intransigent strategy coupled with some outside force—Nazi Germany, the USSR, weaning the West away from Israel—will miraculously grant them total victory. They aren’t going to change course now but that route leads not forward but in circles.

 

Top of Page

 

 

ROUND 2 OF ‘ISRAEL, PALESTINE AT THE ICC’

Yonah Jeremy Bob

Jerusalem Post, November 15, 2012

 

On April 3, 2012, Israel won round one of a crucial legal battle with the Palestinians, slamming the door shut on their attempt to bring Israeli soldiers and leaders before the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges. The Palestinian Authority first filed a declaration attempting to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, after which it intended to file war crimes cases against Israeli soldiers and leaders relating to Operation Cast Lead, on January 22, 2009. Israel’s win was on a technicality, though not a small one.

 

According to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, cases can only be filed with the court by referral from the UN Security Council or by a “state.”…The technical problem the Palestinians had…is that Israel argued the Palestinians were not a “state.” Therefore, Israel argued the Palestinians did not have standing or authority to file a case with the ICC. In other words, the ICC could not even start looking into the merits of individual cases.

 

After more than three years debating the issue, including soliciting around a dozen legal opinions from governments, academics and interested parties across the spectrum, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno- Ocampo, took Israel’s side and said that the PA could not file cases with him because, at the time, there was no state called “Palestine.”…The Rome Statute gives jurisdiction to hear cases from states who join the ICC, even ad hoc and retroactively, as long as the cases arose after July 1, 2002, when the statute took effect.

 

In the media, the decision was reported as an unequivocal win for Israel, and the Palestinians were openly disappointed, having thought from the three-year process, their success in gaining membership in UNESCO and the solicitations of legal briefs on the issue, that they had a solid chance of winning…

 

Israel’s Foreign Ministry’s reaction was unexpectedly muted, merely “noting” (as opposed to at least “noting with satisfaction”) Moreno-Ocampo’s decision, and expressed, in diplomatic- speak, disagreement with part of it, saying Israel had “reservations regarding some of the legal pronouncements and assumptions.”

 

Why would Israel have reservations about a decision closing the door to PA war crimes cases? It turns out that Moreno-Ocampo closed the door, but left it ajar for a “Round 2.” First, in most of his decision, he focused on the UN General Assembly as the decisive organization for defining who is a “state” for the purposes of filing a case with the ICC. This is crucial, because he could have focused on the Security Council, the body that must approve any country to become a member of the UN.

 

The US has pledged to veto any vote in the UN Security Council declaring Palestine a member state, making that a dead end. Thus, Moreno-Ocampo’s focus on the General Assembly gave the PA a future opening for an end-run on being able to file war crimes cases with the ICC by getting recognized as a non-member state, without Security Council recognition, but with General Assembly recognition.

 

Moreno-Ocampo even almost told the Palestinians what road to go down to beat the jurisdictional problem, remarking that Palestine’s status was only as an “observer,” and not a “non-member state,” as if to suggest to the PA that if they had been a non-member state already, his decision might have been different.

 

Finally, Moreno-Ocampo said that his office could reconsider the “allegations of crimes” in Palestine in the future should competent organs of the UN give him direction that the statehood problem was resolved….In essence, Moreno-Ocampo said that if the PA gets voted as a non-member state by the UN General Assembly in two weeks, it can try again to re-file the war crimes cases.

 

Some commentators have said that Moreno-Ocampo’s “advice” to the Palestinians was non-binding, that the only relevant part of his decision was his ruling that the PA was not a state and that without UN Security Council approval, a “political” vote alone from the UN General Assembly will leave the PA at the same dead end of still not being seen as a state by the ICC.

 

Besides statehood, there are still plenty of question marks and other obstacles. In June 2012, Moreno-Ocampo finished his term as the first ICC prosecutor, replaced by Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, who was elected to a nine-year term. While some felt that Moreno- Ocampo would have liked to have filed cases against Israel if his hands had not been tied, there is less known about Bensouda, and whether she would take the same stance as her predecessor in a relatively new office with little precedent for how to operate….

 

[I]n theory, if the Palestinians risk filing with the ICC, Israel (though currently not a party to the ICC) and others might also file against them for human rights violations. Also, as a new institution, diplomatic pressure from the US (though not a party to the Rome Statute) and from some European states could delay or stop a case from moving forward, even if the initial jurisdictional problem was cured.

 

Further, Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, so it could be difficult or impossible to actually conduct a case against Israel’s citizens without its government’s cooperation. Finally, it is far from clear that the ICC would make a final decision to indict any Israelis, in light of the fact that Israel has completed a process of investigations – including some prosecutions – of its soldiers’ actions in Operation Cast Lead.

 

Generally speaking, the ICC is only supposed to make a final decision to file indictments if the state of the accused citizens has done nothing to investigate the allegations. Many argue that only credible investigations are required, not convictions. Despite all of these question marks, there is no question that a vote recognizing Palestine as a non-member state would start a “Round 2” on the war crimes allegations relating to Operation Cast Lead.

 

Top of Page

 

 

PALESTINE” DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A “STATE

Rick Richman

Commentary, November 13, 2012

 

Back in 2005, after Israel removed every soldier and settler from Gaza, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that “from this day forward, there will be no security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” He proved a poor prognosticator regarding Palestinian culture: given the chance to live “side by side in peace and security” with Israel, the Palestinians demonstrated they could not do so even with themselves.

 

Abbas was expelled from Gaza in 2007; there have been no parliamentary or presidential elections since 2006; no functioning Palestinian legislature exists; Abbas is entering the 95th month of his 48-month term; he cannot set foot in half of his purported state (in the words of Israel’s UN ambassador, he cannot even see it with binoculars); he has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than four years; he demands recognition of a Palestinian state while refusing to recognize a Jewish one; and he now seeks admission to the UN as a non-member state even though “Palestine” meets none of the four requirements under international law for a state.

 

Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state “should possess the following qualifications”: (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population.  “Palestine” lacks a “defined territory.” A “defined territory” cannot include an area whose status and borders can only be defined, under longstanding international agreements, by negotiations….

 

“Palestine” lacks a “government.” It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity. Its last election occurred nearly seven years ago, and it has no capacity (much less inclination) to hold a new one. The government of each half considers the government of the other half illegitimate, and both are correct: one regime took power by a coup, and the other remains in power four years after its term expired….

 

“Palestine” lacks the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Abbas has no capacity to bind the rulers of Gaza, nor even to implement his own commitments in the area in which he can at least set foot. While in office, he failed to implement his prior obligations, including Phase I of the Roadmap (which mandated the dismantling of Hamas and other terrorist groups), and he is currently an unelected official, unrecognized by half his putative state, with no capacity to bind “Palestine” to anything.

 

“Palestine” lacks a “permanent population.” Most of the population considers themselves not putative citizens of a new state but perennial “refugees”…who reject any suggestion they should form the permanent population of a new state. They consider themselves instead to be temporary residents (and UNRWA, the UN agency devoted to caring for them, is legally a “temporary” UN body) who seek to “return” to a different state, not to be permanent residents where they currently live.

 

When you refuse to negotiate a defined territory;… when you lack a government that controls your purported territory;…when you lack the capacity to enter into relations with other states;…when you have residents who reject permanent residence and assert instead a “right” to “return” to another state, you meet none of the requirements for a state.

 

The irony is that between 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians received three formal offers of a state, and rejected them all…. Now one group of Palestinians seeks UN recognition as a “non-member state,” when they fail to qualify as a state at all, and they ignore the fact they could already have been a member-state three times over (or more), had they simply said yes….

 

Once again, “Palestine” is all set to be a failed state, no more ready for statehood than it was a year ago. Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention provides that the “primary interests of states is the conservation of peace.” The Palestinian gambit at the UN is not intended to produce peace, but to provide a platform for law-fare. It will do nothing to bring the Palestinians closer to the state they could have had long ago, if a state were really what they wanted, and it will in fact put peace further away.

Top of Page

 

 

TWO PALESTINIAN GOALS AT UN

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Palestinian Media Watch, Nov. 29, 2012

 

The Palestinian Authority wishes to achieve a number of political gains by having the UN vote today [Nov. 29], recognizing "Palestine" as a non-member observer state. First, all lands that are disputed and whose future must be negotiated according to the Oslo Accords, the PA wants declared Palestinian "occupied territory." Second, they claim that UN recognition would change the status of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons to legitimate freedom fighters and prisoners of war.

 

1- Changing the status of land under Israeli administration since 1967 to "occupied territory"

 

PA Foreign Minister Riad Al-Maliki: "If Palestine receives status of a non-member state in the General Assembly, there will be positive effects on all levels in the future… Israel will no longer be able to define the occupied territories as disputed lands. They will become lands of a separate, occupied state."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 24, 2012]

 

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: "During a speech at a meeting of the Arab League Ministerial Council, President Abbas said: … 'We will hand in the application and request that it be voted on this November 29… We want to establish that the Palestinian territories that were [taken] in 1967 including Jerusalem [are occupied], since Israel has a different approach. It says that the territories occupied in 1967 are disputed territories. In other words, up for negotiations'" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 13, 2012]

 

2- Changing the status of Palestinian terrorists who have targeted civilians into legitimate fighters and prisoners of war

 

"Minister of Prisoners, Issa Karake said that the [PA] leadership's application to the UN to wrest [from it] international recognition of a Palestinian state, which is not a member of the UN, will raise the legal status of the prisoners and will offer international protection of their rights and their honor… the prisoners will become captives of a state (i.e., Palestine), hostages and detainees in another state (i.e., Israel). The state's (Palestine's) legal status will turn them into prisoners of war who are detained illegally in the prisons inside Israel." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 13, 2012]…

Top of Page

 

 

 

Misguided UN Bid: JPost Editorial, Jerusalem Post, November 27, 2012—The PLO’s UN bid is misguided and wrongheaded and will do nothing but add to the long list of historic mistakes made by Palestinian leadership which date back at least to November 29, 1947 when Palestinians failed to grab their chance for nationhood and self-determination.

 

Accomplices in a Campaign to Annihilate A UN Member: Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2012—Israelis are frequently asked: Why is Israel opposed to recognizing a Palestinian state? Detach yourselves from the Palestinians like the French detached themselves from Algeria and the two states will live in peace with each other as was originally envisaged under the 1947 Partition Resolution….

 

European Votes on PA Statehood Bid Fall Into Place: Jerusalem Post, Reuters, Nov. 28, 2012—Lines were drawn in Europe…as the Union failed to agree on a unified approach to a Palestinian bid for a diplomatic upgrade at the United Nations. Germany declared that it would not back the PA's unilateral bid, while Switzerland and Denmark joined a growing list of European countries that do support it.

 

Palestine’s Muddled Statehood Strategy: Robert M. Danin, Council on Foreign Relations, Nov. 28, 2012—If all goes according to plan, the UN General Assembly will vote on Thursday or soon after to accord Palestine “non-member observer state status” in the United Nations.

 

The UN Vote, The International Criminal Court and the Riddle of Palestinian IntentionsHaviv Rettig Gur, Times of Israel, Nov. 29, 2012—The Palestinian Authority will seek, and likely win, recognition as a nonmember observer state on Thursday from the 193-member United Nations General Assembly. The move will have little effect on the ground, changing neither Israel’s security calculus nor the internal divisions of Palestinian politics.

 

Who Wants a Palestinian State?: Moshe Dann, Jerusalem Post, November 26, 2012—Accepting Israel means ending the Palestinian revolution, a national betrayal and an Islamic heresy. In this context, for Palestinians and their supporters, the “peace process” is a metaphor for defeat.

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Ber Lazarus, Publications Editor, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org