Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Do Palestinians deserve a state?

Mike L. 
Op-ed by Dan Calic: Arabs have been unsuccessful in eliminating Israel militarily, but their lust to see it disappear hasn't diminished

With President Obama coming to Israel soon, let me ask what some consider a rhetorical question- do the Palestinians actually deserve a state of their own? Obama and most of the international community think they do. Yet if we take a closer look at the situation there are serious issues which should not be ignored. For example, would it be a peaceful, productive neighbor with Israel? This can best be answered by reviewing some guiding principles of the PLO and Fatah, which is the dominant political party of which Mahmoud Abbas is chairman.

From the PLO charter:

Article 19: "….establishment of the State of Israel is entirely illegal…"

Article 20: "….Jews do not constitute a single nation with an identity of its own…"

From the Fatah charter:

Article 12: "…complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

Article 17: "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine."

Article 19: "The struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished, and Palestine is completely liberated."

Do these statements reflect goals of a peaceful and productive neighbor?

It's important to understand when they use the term "Palestine," it includes Israel. In other words, both organizations refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence, and see Judea and Samaria and the all the land upon which Israel exists as a single state of "Palestine." This reflects adherence to the uncompromising extremist Islamic view that any land once controlled by Muslims is seen as forever belonging to them. Abandoning the claim for said land is equal to blasphemy.

The failure to understand this by far too many has fostered unrealistic expectations of compromise by Islamist extremists. This applies to most world leaders, including President Obama. 
Read the whole thing here.
There is a way for president Obama to help bring peace between the Jews and their Arab tormentors in the Middle East, but Obama has not the slightest idea what it is.  Here's a hint, it does not involve ethnically-cleansing the Jews out of Judea.  Nor does it involve pressuring the Jews of the Middle East to accept what they have always accepted, i.e., the partition of our historic homeland to make room for yet another brutally racist Arab dictatorship.

What Obama needs to do is precisely what he will never do.  That is, what he needs to do is get with the EU and place strong pressure on the Palestinian Arab leadership to come to the bargaining table for the purpose of settling final status issues, particularly the question of borders.  The Palestinian Arab leadership must be made to understand that unless they agree to negotiations without preconditions and unless they are willing to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one they will lose all American and European support, financial and otherwise.

That might do the trick.  Maybe.  One thing is certain, however, so long as Barack Obama continues to think that the real problem is that Jews continue to live, and thus build housing for themselves, where he does not want them to, then he can never do anything but make matters worse, which is exactly what he has been doing all along.  So long as Obama is willing to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the PA, even if the PA teaches genocidal hatred toward Jews, so that Mahmoud Abbas can funnel huge sums into his private Swiss bank account, he will have no motivation for a negotiated conclusion of hostilities.

So long as Obama is willing to underwrite dictator Abbas no matter what Abbas says or does then there is no reason for Abbas to do anything but continue on his chosen path and that does not include making peace with Israel.


  1. Maybe he'll pleasantly surprise us all and take your suggestion, Mike. ;)

    I don't know. Perhaps our next president can try that, if this stage of the conflict still exists in five or six years?

    Who came closest to doing so, considering the circumstances of their time (or not, if such things don't matter?), in your opinion? Perhaps this can be the subject of a post if it's too complicated to get into with just a comment?

    1. Or would it be better if we just stayed out of it altogether and let things take their own course, somehow (and would they then even take a 'course' of any kind, for that matter)? From what I gather, and of course I could be wrong, but, I'm sure at least a good number of Israelis wouldn't mind this, either.

      Not suggesting anything either way, I just seem to be in an inquisitive mood lately.

  2. Maybe in 15 or 20 years IF Israel becomes an energy exporting power as some have predicted, the US and the EU (if they're still around) might start putting pressure on the palestinians, but I doubt it. Forty years ago Yasser Arafat personally order the murder of US diplomats in Khartoum The US government knew about and never did a damn thing. The PA and PLO will continue to do whatever the hell they like and no one will do a thing about it and they know it.

    Who was the very first foreign leader Obama called after taking office? (Hint: he's a Holocaust denier who financed the Munich Olympic massacre)

  3. I am reading "Escape from Sobibor". In it there's a footnote from the secretary of Anthony Eden, UK Foreign Minister at the time. This is when Jan Karski smuggled himself into the death camps and brought first hand eye witness testimony and documents about the scale and reality of the Holocaust to the highest levels of the British government in person. Eden was arguing with Churchill about increased refugees in the UK or perhaps relaxing previous restrictions on Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine. The note from Eden's secretary was "This will never happen, A.E. loves Arabs, hates the Jews."

    The notion that anyone 'deserves' a state is no less silly than demanding a state 'justify' its own 'right to exist'. Israel doesn't exist because it deserves to exist. It exists because it does and will never be uninvented.