On The Palestinians' Bid For A Terror-State

In a speech filled with lies, hatred for Israel, and a refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the Palestinians' part in the conflict, Abbas on Friday made his bid to the UN for a Palestinian state, without negotiations, and without Palestinian concessions. 

It is interesting to note who is for and who is against the bid. Against includes The Times and J Street, because although obviously both are pro a 2 state solution, J Street explain “we do not believe that, in the current context, it [the bid for statehood without negotiations] will advance peace, enhance security and improve conditions on the ground.” Which sums up why most rational people are against it.

Meanwhile the UK version of J Street (but evidently a lot more stupid naive), the questionably “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group Yachad are for it, because they “believe it represents a historic opportunity to advance and expedite the peace process... to be recognised as a state will require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state.” The Guardian of course, is also for it, as they appear not to want the Palestinians to have to make any concessions at all, whether engaging in land swaps, recognising Israel as the Jewish state, or tearing up their agreement with Hamas - you know, the antisemitic, genocidal terror organisation.

So let’s have a look at just some of the reasons why the Palestinian state Abbas asked for is, to put it lightly, a bad idea.

Robin Shepherd observes that:

“There is one party to this dispute that most emphatically does not support a Palestinian state, if that means long-term acceptance of the State of Israel: the Palestinians themselves… opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say)… a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: ‘The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state’”.

On the day of the bid, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas Zaki, told Al Jazeera that regarding Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for 2 states, “Abbas understands... everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end. If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... It's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.” This might seem like a stupid thing to say to an internationally aired news channel, but the truth is the mainstream media either don't make the effort to know, or don't care about the difference between what Palestinian officials say in Arabic and what they say in English.

Palestinians often depict a map of the whole of Israel as representing “Palestine”, whether in newspaper cartoons, or Fatah’s own logo, which was on Abbas' official document to the UN. 

Abbas himself, speaking for the Palestinians, will not recognise Israel as the Jewish state, as he has said numerous time, including on 27^th August to the PLO Central Council: “Present to us something sensible, don’t present to us ‘The Jewish State’, we will never accept it... The Quartet cannot force upon us the character of the state [of Israel], or that we should recognize the nature of the Israeli state”.

And he didn’t change his mind between then and 22^rd September, the day before the bid, when he told 200 representatives of American Arabs of Palestinian descent “we will not recognise the Jewish state...  we will only accept that Palestine be free of settlers and soldiers [i.e. Jews]”.

Which is what the PLO’s ambassador to the US, Maen Areikat, said on 13^th September, that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews. He later explained he meant settlers and soldiers (so, still Jews then), but last year he made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether “Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave”, he responded “absolutely”.

Let’s not forget that Abbas is a Holocaust denier, he denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel, rewrites the history of the conflict, and is responsible for his government’s incitement of hatred and violence towards Israelis and Jews, through Palestinian childrens’ tv programmes, honouring and glorifying terrorists with processions, video tributes, naming streets, schools, town squares and youth groups after them; and rewarding the families ofterrorists with payment. 

About a year ago, the PA Minister of Prisoners’ affairs Issa Karake honoured a Palestinian woman, Latifa Abu Hmeid, with a plaque inscribed with the names of four of her sons who are serving sentences in Israeli prisons, all of them for their involvement in the murder of Israeli civilians in numerous terror attacks. Karake stated: “The Palestinian mother is a central partner in the struggle... It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honour.”

Two weeks ago, Karake stated that "The recognition of the [Palestinian] state means... that the struggles of the prisoners [i.e. terrorists] are legitimized and legal according to UN Resolutions”.

So it isn’t surprising that last week the Palestinians’ statehood campaign began with Abu Hmeid, the mother honoured for giving birth to murderers, leading the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah, where she handed over a letter to the representative there of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon calling for the UN to recognise a Palestinian state.

Probably the most obvious reason why the statehood bid is a bad idea, yet people still need to be reminded of it, is that Israel left Gaza in 2005, uprooting thousands of Israeli citizens from their homes there. Hamas then took over, throwing out Fatah and firing over 10,000 rockets on Israeli civilians. Israel would need to ensure that the West Bank would be under the control of moderates, and that weapons would not be smuggled in, which would mean that practically every city in Israel would be in range.

Why could Abbas possibly object to negotiations with Netanyahu that would address these problems? And why would people, people who call themselves pro-peace and pro-Israel, support Abbas in this?

Boycotts And Freedom Of Antisemitic Speech

Contrary to what some people may assume, I’m sadly not paid to blog by the Israeli government or anyone else, but I have just been preoccupied with more Zionisty stuff (that I’m also not paid for), and with my alter-life and job (which I am paid for!)

So, back to business.

There was a lot of fuss made about Israel’s supposedly undemocratic “anti-boycott law” passed in July, which allows victims of boycotts to sue the boycotters. Apart from the fact that the law simply enables Israelis to defend themselves and their businesses, the law is not dissimilar to some in other countries as well, including America. The most obvious point to make though, is the fact that the very premise of the boycotts is not only wrong but also mostly antisemitic (see section on Israel in the definition of antisemitism).

So the fact that the anti-boycott law might be seen as infringing on freedom of speech is pretty irrelevant, as it is in other cases. For example whilst most media will not allow a terrorist the airtime/column space to call for Jihad, many (see: The Guardian, Haaretz) will allow terrorists and lefties to express support and understanding for other terrorists, usually only if they’re Palestinian “freedom fighters” killing Israeli “colonialists” or something. But there’s a very, very fine line between understanding and supporting terrorism, and actively calling for it, so although media might be berated for restricting the former, and even firing a columnist for it, as the Jerusalem Post just did, most normal people will understand.

Anyway it turns out though that perhaps we don’t have so much to worry about with regards to the boycotts. When boycotters have highlighted the Israeli “settler” products they want people to avoid, those companies have reported an increase in sales, because the majority of people living in Israel are not lunatics and actually care about and support the country they live in. 

An interesting question is raised: “If Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli citizen currently living over the Green Line (making him a Settler) were to open a factory, would the Left call for its boycott too? Or are their calls to boycott actually racist and only targeting Jews?”

The irony is that even most Palestinians don’t boycott Israeli products; as EoZ says, they just want to live their lives, they don’t obsess over politics the way the fanatical left do. 

On Thursday night anti-Israel activists staged a noisy protest inside London’s Royal Albert Hall, where the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra was playing. The music was disrupted several times by the protestors’ hysterical singing and shouting, and BBC Radio took the concert off the air. Success? Not really. The protestors were drowned out by thousands in the audience who booed them and chanted “out, out”, then cheered and clapped as they were removed. Perhaps many people in the audience support Palestinian rights, and oppose many Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, but anyone with an ounce of sense can see that essentially “terrorizing” an orchestra (in which people of all religions and nationalities, including Palestinian are or have been involved), is not a legitimate form of protest. It can only be antisemitism.