Notify me of new HIR pieces!
Leaders Lied, Jews died.
Why have Israeli leaders been lying to their fellow
Historical and Investigative Research
- 10 July 2007
Israeli leaders and media are bombarding Israelis with the argument that the Oslo process which has brought them so much violence should continue, and that the Western, Israeli, and Arab governments should all strengthen Al Fatah (i.e. the PLO or ‘Palestinian Authority’) because Fatah are the ‘moderates’ whereas Hamas, which has taken over Gaza, are the ‘real extremists.’
We’ve heard this argument before. Right after the Oslo ‘peace’ process brought Al Fatah to be the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, violence against innocent Jews in Israel increased swiftly and dramatically. The violence was usually blamed exclusively on ‘rival’ organization Hamas, though it was always obvious that supposedly ‘moderate’ Fatah chief Yasser Arafat was either not interfering with it, or else fomenting it, or else adding (considerable) Fatah violence to the mix. But no matter. Israeli leaders repeatedly told the Israeli citizenry that it was imperative always to give more power to PLO/Fatah so that Hamas -- the ‘real extremists’ -- could be defeated and the ‘peace’ process saved. As Kenneth Levin puts it, “the more terror, the more the [Israeli] government urged a speeding of the ‘peace process.’ ” The current resurrection of the ‘support Fatah against Hamas’ argument in the context of the recent Hamas vs. Fatah ‘fight,’ as HIR showed in our previous piece, is more of the same, and equally phony.
This much duplicity by Israeli leaders in favor of Al Fatah reveals that defending Al Fatah is really quite important to them. It was the Israeli government, after all, that brought this antisemitic, terrorist organization into the Jewish state, even though, at the time, Al Fatah had already been defeated, and languished far away, in Tunisian exile. So the Israeli government revived Al Fatah. But that’s nothing. In order to bring Al Fatah into the Jewish state, Israeli leaders concealed from the Israeli public that Al Fatah was spawned by the leadership of the German Nazi Final Solution.
After explaining what Israeli leaders said to ordinary Israelis in order to bring Fatah/PLO into the Jewish state, and explaining also what they failed to say about Fatah/PLO origins, I will point out that there is a significant new development in Israeli politics. For the first time, an Israeli leader -- and not just anybody but the second place in the race to be the next Likud candidate, which race will be decided 14 August 2007 -- is saying it in public and in so many words: Al Fatah was spawned by the leadership of the German Nazi Final Solution.
In 1982 Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, from the Israeli Likud party, largely defeated Al Fatah. Terrorism from Fatah bases in southern Lebanon had become intolerable, so Begin launched an invasion of Lebanon that put an end to Fatah’s presence there. But this terrorist group was saved from total obliteration by a vigorous US intervention on its behalf, after which it got a US (and French) military escort to its new base in Tunis.
A few years after that, in 1987-88, Israelis were treated to the First Intifada, a series of violent riots (including attacks against Jewish civilians) in the disputed territories of West Bank and Gaza. These are territories acquired by Israel in 1967 when the Arab states -- having lost the genocidal war that they proudly launched -- refused to take these territories back even though a victorious Israel was offering them in return for nothing more than a promise of peace. The First Intifada violence of 1987-88 began on ‘Fatah Day’ to celebrate the founding of the organization that, from Tunis, was pulling the strings.
The Fatah-organized and Fatah-orchestrated violence of the First Intifada was represented by the Western governments and media as a series of ‘spontaneous’ and ‘non-violent’ ‘demonstrations’ to protest the oppression that West Bank and Gaza Arabs were supposedly subject to. This story destroyed Israel’s international prestige. Against the background of international media and United Nations posturing that Israel owed something to the ‘suffering Palestinians,’ Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (Likud), under heavy US pressure, attended the Madrid ‘peace’ talks in 1991 that became the platform for the so-called Oslo ‘peace’ process, whose great architect would be, more or less behind the scenes, Yossi Beilin, while on center stage it was Labor Party leader Shimon Peres (now serving as President of Israel).
Soon after, Peres, together with then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- the latter elected on his solemn campaign promise not to negotiate with Fatah -- worked hard to convince ordinary Israelis that they should negotiate with Fatah because this organization had supposedly changed and genuinely wanted peace; the US government, along with the Western and Israeli media, loudly endorsed and reiterated this representation. The premise of Oslo was that, in exchange for letting PLO/Fatah into the Jewish state and giving it power over the Arab population in the disputed territories, there would be no more proud genocidal wars against the Jewish state, and no more terrorism.
This point is crucial: without such commitments, hardly any Israelis would have agreed to Oslo.
Rabin had promised “a time without worries, nights without anxiety, the end of death,” and Peres had added: “The [Oslo] agreement has inaugurated a new, violence-free era.” Whoops. Arab terrorist violence against innocent Israelis immediately quintupled after Al Fatah installed itself as the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs in 1994. There was a “wave of terrorist attacks” right before Arafat, Peres, and Rabin were to receive their Nobel peace prizes, but no matter: the Israeli government pushed forward with a troop withdrawal from various areas that left many Israeli Jews at the mercy of Arafat’s new ‘government.’
Rabin and Peres had promised that, should violence not cease, they would immediately terminate the Oslo process and expel PLO/Fatah, but now they insisted that increased violence was a natural consequence (!) of their ‘peace’ process and represented their retreat on their earlier promises as a stubborn and virtuous courage: “RABIN VOWS NEVER TO ABANDON THE PEACE PROCESS DESPITE TERROR ATTACKS,” explained one headline immediately after Rabin collected his Nobel ‘peace’ prize.
As the violence kept on rising, Labor leaders congratulated themselves on their wisdom. “People always asked, ‘Can you trust Arafat?’ It emerges that he can be trusted,” Shimon Peres cheerily pronounced in April 1996, when he pretended to believe that the PLO had amended its Covenant or Charter to erase its constitutional commitment to destroy Israel. A few years later, from the considerably improved strategic position that Peres had secured for him, ‘trusty’ Yasser Arafat unleashed on ordinary Israelis the much bloodier Second Intifada. But Peres stood fast by the Fatah chief: “Shimon Peres yesterday launched a staunch defense of the man most Israelis believe is orchestrating continuing violence: Mr Yasser Arafat,” the Irish Times reported in October 2001. And yet Peres “shared Mr [Ariel] Sharon’s assertion that Mr Arafat was sanctioning terrorism.” In other words, though Shimon Peres was agreeing that the very premise of his own Oslo logic had been violated, his support for Al Fatah and Oslo remained “staunch.” Other Labor Party leaders likewise stood by Arafat and Al Fatah.
The main rival party in Israel has been Likud, whose leaders had been spewing rhetorical fire against PLO/Fatah and the Oslo Accords. For example, way back in October 1985, when pre-Oslo stirrings were making themselves heard, Benjamin Netanyahu accused in a New York Times editorial that “the destruction of Israel remains the PLO’s unchanging goal.” Netanyahu further accused that all this ‘peace’ noise that the PLO was increasingly making (with which Shimon Peres would eventually sell Oslo to the Israelis) was a phony: “As recently as May,” Netanyahu pointed out,
This was a reference to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas’s ‘Plan of Phases,’ which specified that Al Fatah would announce limited goals, such as a ‘Palestinian state’ in the disputed territories, so that it could build a platform from which to pursue “its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation” (a policy put dramatically into effect in the Second Intifada).
Netanyahu’s bluster got him elected prime minister in the mid-1990s when the Israelis, fed up with the increased violence, voted for his anti-Oslo platform. But as soon as the votes were in and counted Netanyahu changed his tune:
“The Palestinians will soon declare an independent state and no one can stop them, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said yesterday. ...In keeping with Netanyahu’s post-election moderate tone, with which he seeks to reassure people at home and abroad of his commitment to the [Oslo] peace process, his statement did not denounce Arafat’s remarks but rather said the premier-elect ‘sees things differently’ from Arafat on final status talks.”
That was June 1996, but Netanyahu was moving fast. By July, as reported in the New York Times, “Mr. Netanyahu...has said that he would abide by the accords with the Palestinians if they do, and would consider meeting Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, if necessary.” The same NYT article reported the contrary statements of his fellow Likud leader Ariel Sharon: “Mr. [Ariel] Sharon has condemned the agreements as ‘terrible and dangerous’ and calls Mr. Arafat a terrorist and war criminal.” Netanyahu went on to push the Oslo process even faster than his Labor predecessors. All the while, Ariel Sharon complained bitterly, and loudly denounced what was happening.
But then, in June 1997, the Jerusalem Post reported that
“...Sharon met secretly with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s deputy, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), two weeks ago. The fact of the meeting was leaked over the weekend, sending shock waves through right-wing circles. Until now, Sharon, the architect of Israel’s 1982 war against the PLO in Lebanon, has not softened his rejection of the PLO, calling it a terrorist organization and Arafat himself a ‘war criminal.’”
This was a harbinger of things to come. Though Ariel Sharon would later be elected by the Israelis on a loud anti-Oslo platform, like Netanyahu he transformed himself once in office, and in fact pushed beyond the Oslo process faster and harder than his Labor predecessor Ehud Barak (now Defense Minister), whose pro-Oslo enthusiasm was in fact quite difficult to top. Ariel Sharon used the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to cleanse the Jewish population of the Gaza Strip and gave this territory, in exchange for nothing, to the Fatah terrorists, following which Gaza quickly became a fully fledged Fatah/Hamas terrorist outpost, intended (and used) to increase the lethality of attacks on Israelis. Fatah killings continued, but “Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin said: ‘Contrary to Arafat, Abu Mazen is against terrorist activity...’” Arafat had never wanted peace, everybody now conceded, but Arafat’s lifelong ally, co-founder and co-leader of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, did want peace? That was Sharon’s message.
Ariel Sharon died (essentially), and then Sharon protégé Ehud Olmert took over, continuing Sharon’s policy.
Like Sharon and Netanyahu, Olmert first established his reputation as a leader of what is called the Israeli ‘right’ which in the beginning opposed negotiations with PLO/Fatah. But in “In 1991, [Ehud Olmert] helped steer [Yitzhak] Shamir toward the Madrid Peace Conference.”[22a] This conference became the platform for the Oslo Accords, the so-called ‘peace’ process that had for purpose to rescue PLO/Fatah -- the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution -- from its exile in Tunis, and bring it into the heart of the historical Land of Israel, give it power over the Arabs, and prepare it to receive a strategic piece of the Jewish State.[22b]
It should come as no surprise, then, that in March 2006 “Mr Olmert said ‘we are in a perfect strategic understanding with the US’ on Mr [Mahmoud] Abbas.” What does this mean? “Olmert and his colleagues portray Abbas as a central member of a camp of ‘moderates’ which includes the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Jordanians,” explains the Jerusalem Post. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and the repressive Saudi and Egyptian terrorist states are moderates (the quote is from July 2007 but it feels so much like “1984”). And Mahmoud Abbas must be a moderate, too, because this is the same Mahmoud Abbas who played a leading role masterminding the infamous 1972 Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes (an accusation the US government has publicly conceded), and the same Mahmoud Abbas whom the very worst Fatah terrorists were most eager to see succeed Arafat at the head of Fatah. But no matter. “Binyamin Netanyahu,” from the ‘opposition’ in June 2007, “is urging that Jordanian troops help secure the West Bank. ...We have to shore up the Abbas government, he told reporters.”
Despite the ever increasing violence that Fatah has been directing against ordinary Israelis, as we see, leaders of both ‘left’ and ‘right’ parties in Israel have apologized for this organization in order to justify giving it ever more power inside the Jewish state -- power that Fatah has used to murder innocent Jews (and Arabs). Israelis are now bombarded with the old story that strengthening Fatah is the only way to stop the ‘true extremists’ in Hamas (though Fatah has in fact murdered more innocent Israelis than Hamas).
Is this amazing? This is nothing! The entire Oslo process could have been stopped abruptly in its tracks before it started, and Israel made safe, if Israeli leaders had simply informed ordinary Israelis -- and Westerners -- of one very important fact: Al Fatah was produced by the leadership of the German Nazi Final Solution.
Hajj Amin al Husseini was Mufti of Jerusalem in British Mandate Palestine in the early 20th c., and from this position organized several massive terrorist riots against innocent Jews, including torture to death of Jewish children. The last one of these, lasting from 1936 to 1939, was called the ‘Arab Revolt’ and made use of weapons provided by Adolf Hitler. When World War II exploded, Husseini traveled to Berlin and met with Adolf Hitler on 30 November 1941. Though the Nazis had already killed a great many Jews, historians are agreed that up until this time the Nazis were planning on expelling most of them from Europe. It was less than two months after the Husseini-Hitler meeting that the Nazi leadership decided, at the famous Wannsee Conference of January 1942, that they would kill every last Jew in Europe.
Did Husseini convince Adolf Hitler?
At the time of the Husseini-Hitler meeting, it was Husseini who had some 20 years experience organizing mass murders of innocent Jews, and he had just organized the massive ‘Arab Revolt’ and also an Iraqi pogrom that had ended Jewish life in that country. So Husseini was the Jew-killer with the most experience and prestige; Hitler was just getting his sea legs. Supporting the view that the project to kill all the Jews was first Husseini's idea, we have the postwar testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, presented at Nuremberg and also at Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. Wisliceny said that Husseini had been who argued most passionately for the project to kill all the Jews, and that he had been even more important than Adolf Eichmann as an instigator, planner, and overseer of the process that murdered the European Jewish population. Wisliceny was in a position to know: he was one of Adolf Eichmann’s chief lieutenants in the Final Solution. Adolf Eichmann is considered the great architect of that genocide. Wisliceny testified, however, that Hajj Amin al Husseini was not Eichmann's inferior; when there were differences of opinion, it was Husseini's will that dominated.
After the war, the British and French governments allowed Husseini to escape to Egypt, where, in the 1950s, he mentored Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and other adolescents who became the nucleus of Al Fatah. The PLO -- a federation of anti-Israeli terrorists groups founded in 1964 -- was swallowed by Al Fatah in 1969-70. Since then, the PLO has essentially been Al Fatah.
Talking about the German Nazi Final Solution without mentioning Hajj Amin al Husseini, creator of Al Fatah, is like talking about the Catholic Church without mentioning either Paul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) or the Pope, but most people -- including most Jews -- though they have heard about the Holocaust, cannot recognize Husseini’s name. And yet the documentation to establish what Husseini did has been publicly available for years, and a generation ago it was not the ‘secret’ it is today. Right after World War II the identity and Holocaust role of Hajj Amin al Husseini was common knowledge even among the general public, as revealed by efforts in the House of Commons to have him tried as a war criminal for his crimes against the Jews (blocked by the British government), and by a massive 1948 demonstration in the streets of New York that gathered some 250,000 people from 100 different cities and 14 states. This demonstration was called to protest that the US and British governments were assisting the combined Arab attack against the Israeli Jews, an attack that Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League (a British creation), openly promised would be “a war of extermination and a momentous massacre.” At this demonstration, Hajj Amin al Husseini, a leader of the 1948 attack, was denounced by name over the loudspeakers.
Today, most people are not aware that a Palestinian Arab was the top architect of Adolf Hitler’s extermination of the European Jews, and that this Palestinian Arab later created Al Fatah (i.e. ‘the PLO’), the organization that has been rewarded with the diplomatic services of the United States and other major powers, and staunchly defended by the leaders of the Israeli government and Diaspora Jewish leaders. The reason most people don’t know this is that there has been a total media silence, and total Western government and Israeli government silence, about all this, to which I must add the silence of most academics. It is indeed perilous for academics to publish material on Husseini, as I found out when an article I published in Israel National News about Husseini's role in the Holocaust and as creator of Al Fatah got me fired from the University of Pennsylvania. It is this enforced silence on Husseini that made the Oslo ‘peace’ process possible when Israeli and Western leaders sold us the story that Fatah had supposedly reformed and now wanted peace, a story we never would have believed if we had been properly informed about the origins of Al Fatah in Husseini’s Final Solution.
I have heard many wishful-thinking Jews put forward desperate arguments to explain the behavior of their leadership: that they were under pressure, that they honestly thought this was the way to achieve peace, that they wanted international recognition, that they were stupid... But these all collapse once it is understood that Al Fatah is the continuation of the project to exterminate the Jewish people. There simply is no honest argument for bringing the continuation of the most successful project in history to kill Jews into the Jewish state. And this explains why Israeli leaders have not been honest, and instead have kept silent, across the board, about the Nazi origins of Fatah/PLO.
But the question, then, is this:
Why have Israeli leaders -- of all people -- been cooperating with the effort to cover for Al Fatah in order to sell to the Israeli public a policy that brought this extension of the German Nazi Final Solution into -- of all places -- the Jewish state?
And an even more interesting question is this:
Why have supposed opponents of the Oslo process among Israeli leaders not demolished this process by simply exposing the Nazi origins of Al Fatah? Why have they become supporters of this process instead?
Today we can find some Israeli leaders criticizing the pro-Oslo policies of Ehud Olmert and the pro-Oslo proposals of Benjamin Netanyahu, but they likewise have not been explaining to Israelis the Nazi origins of Fatah/PLO. Why?
I recently had the opportunity to pose this question to those running the Manhigut Yehudit ("Jewish Leadership") movement, which claims to be the largest faction within the Israeli Likud party.
First, a bit of context. The Likud is a descendant of Menachem Begin’s Herut party, which in turn inherited the mantle of the Jabotinsky Revisionist Zionists. It was the Jabotinsky movement that defended the Jews in Europe who were being slaughtered in the Holocaust, and also the Jabotinsky movement that defended innocent Jews from the attacks of Arab terrorists in Palestine, whereas the Labor Zionists did just the opposite in both cases. (If this is not the impression you have of the Jabotinsky movement you have probably been consuming a great deal of propaganda passing for history that the same Labor Establishment which brought the PLO/Fatah into Israel has been producing since the World War.) But the patriotic Jabotinsky tradition became a thing of the past in the Likud after Menachem Begin stepped down. The Likud prime ministers that followed -- Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon -- all supported the process to bring Al Fatah into the Jewish state and give it ever more power, even if they sometimes postured as opponents.
The Manhigut Yehudit faction within the Likud has campaigned for the party leadership against Benjamin Netanyahu’s betrayal of Likud principles, and has promised to return this party to its roots -- for example, opposing (without success) the IDF cleansing of the Jews living in Gush Katif and the ‘unilateral disengagement’ from Gaza. The leader, Moshe Feiglin, says that he is
“looking for a unique state -- a vital, flourishing Jewish State. I want to settle Jews on every inch of land that falls into our hands. I want to establish an exemplary Jewish society that will be a moral model for the entire world -- a true ‘light unto the nations.’ ...I do not want peace. I want to defeat our enemies, drive them from our Land and fulfill our Jewish destiny. Peace will surely follow.”
Feiglin says “I don’t want peace.” In other words, he doesn’t want an Oslo so-called ‘peace,’ which is to say negotiations with terrorists who merely speak the language of peace in order to achieve a better position from which to kill Jews. He wants a military solution against the terrorists. This is strong anti-Oslo rhetoric. But Israelis have been sold anti-Oslo rhetoric before only to find themselves, after voting for it, once again in the tight grasp of the suicidal Oslo process.
Recently, Rob Muchnick, in charge of public relations in the USA for Manhigut Yehudit, submitted an opinion piece penned by Moshe Feiglin for possible publication in Historical and Investigative Research. I replied that HIR -- though certainly not without opinions -- is not in the business of publishing opinion but research pieces, and that we do not endorse specific parties or candidates. But since we were talking, I ventured, how come even Moshe Feiglin was not explaining to ordinary Israelis about the Nazi origins of the PLO? What better way to defeat his pro-Oslo opponent Benjamin Netanyahu for the Likud leadership? What was the reason for Manhigut Yehudit’s silence on this most important issue to the survival of the Jewish people and state?
After a few back and forth emails, Rob Muchnick asked me what I would do if I were running Feiglin’s campaign. I replied that since Feiglin is running against Netanyahu, who is strongly supporting PLO/Fatah, I would make the Nazi origins of Fatah the center of the campaign, because this ethically informs Israeli citizens of the danger they are in, and it puts supporters of the Oslo process on the defensive, thereby undermining their political support. Muchnick replied that he had presented my views to the Manhigut Yehudit leadership and that they were finding favor. There followed another email with the latest issue of the movement’s Shul Newsletter, sporting an article by candidate Moshe Feiglin. This article bears the title, “Here comes the Likud election!”, and contains the subheading, “But who are Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] and Fatah?” Below that subheading follows this important passage:
“Even if one disregards Bibi [Netanyahu’s] blatant contravention of the Likud Charter in supporting the creation of another terror state in Israel, shouldn’t we take a look at Mahmoud Abbas (aka “Abu Mazen”) and his Fatah group? His Fatah has committed more terror acts than all the other terrorist groups combined (including Hamas) since the Oslo Accords were signed, so how can anyone say they are “moderate”? Abu Mazen is on record as stating that he’ll never give up the so-called “palestinian right of return” which would destroy Israel through demographics, and that he’ll never disarm any terror groups. He is also a co-author of the PLO’s 1974 “Phases” Plan for destroying Israel by taking what they can through negotiations prior to launching an all-out military assault to take the rest of Israel. It looks to anyone with their eyes open that he’s following his own plan. And where did that plan come from? Fatah was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini (Arafat’s mentor), top architect of Hitler’s German Nazi Final Solution. Just look at al Husseini with Hitler and look at how Abu Mazen salutes and speaks [there is a photograph of Husseini with Hitler and another of Mahmoud Abbas giving the Nazi salute] and you’ll clearly see that these moderates are just Nazis dressed up with platitudes for their western audience. But isn’t it the height of irresponsibility for any Israeli leader to bargain with men such as these? How can our opponents even consider it? How can they put Jewish lives at risk by trusting these men? What are they thinking?”
Soon after this Manhigut Yehudit issued a press release in which it explained to its audience the Nazi origins of Fatah/PLO.
If only more Israelis knew what Fatah/PLO really is, then they could make informed choices, which are the basis of true political freedom.
( April 1996 )
“People always asked, ‘Can you trust Arafat?’ It emerges that he can be trusted,” [Shimon] Peres said.
( October 2001 )
“...Shimon Peres, yesterday launched a staunch defence of the man most Israelis believe is orchestrating continuing violence: Mr Yasser Arafat... [even though] he shared Mr [Ariel] Sharon’s assertion that Mr Arafat was sanctioning terrorism.”
( October 1985 )
NETANYAHU: “…the destruction of Israel remains the PLO’s unchanging goal… As recently as May, Abu Nazir, a leader of al Fatah, said: ‘When we demand the establishment of a Palestinian state, or even a Jordan-PLO confederation, this is a strategy leading to the establishment of a state over all of Palestine. The ‘phased policy’ provides us with a springboard towards further goals’…”
( June 1996 )
“The Palestinians will soon declare an independent state and no one can stop them, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said yesterday. …In keeping with Netanyahu’s post-election moderate tone, with which he seeks to reassure people at home and abroad of his commitment to the peace process, his statement did not denounce Arafat’s remarks but rather said the premier-elect ‘sees things differently’ from Arafat on final status talks.”
( October 1985 )
NETANYAHU: “…the Achille Lauro [terrorist] incident should have opened the West’s eyes to the true nature of the Palestine Liberation Organization. … the Achille Lauro was commandeered by P.L.O. terrorists whose direct commander, Mohammed Abbas, is one of Mr. Arafat’s closest deputies.”
( June 2007 )
“Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu is urging that Jordanian troops help secure the West Bank. …We have to shore up the Abbas government he told reporters.”
( July 1996 )
“Mr. Sharon has condemned the [Oslo] agreements as ‘terrible and dangerous’ and calls Mr. Arafat a terrorist and war criminal.”
( June 1997 )
“...Sharon met secretly with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s deputy, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), two weeks ago. The fact of the meeting was leaked over the weekend, sending shock waves through right-wing circles. Until now, Sharon, the architect of Israel’s 1982 war against the PLO in Lebanon, has not softened his rejection of the PLO, calling it a terrorist organization and Arafat himself a ‘war criminal.’”
( April 2003 )
“Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin said: ‘Contrary to Arafat, Abu Mazen is against terrorist activity...’”
( March 2006 )
“Mr Olmert said ‘we are in a perfect strategic understanding with the US’ on Mr [Mahmoud] Abbas.”
( July 2007 )
“Olmert and his colleagues portray Abbas as a central member of a camp of ‘moderates’ which includes the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Jordanians.”
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
Footnotes and Further Reading
 Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.348)
“HAMAS VS. FATAH: A CURIOUS ‘FIGHT’; What if Hamas and Fatah are not really
enemies?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2007; by Francisco
1982-1983 -- The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO
from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look
at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco
1967 -- After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish
the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli
defense; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the
evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
1987-1988 -- The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to
represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs’;
from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”;
Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
1991 Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in
the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS
THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical
and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
 In a May 1994 editorial, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote: “What has happened is also contrary to the solemn promises made by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in order to get elected. Then, he promised he would not negotiate with the PLO and that he would do nothing to prejudice the question of final sovereignty.”
SOURCE: Can anyone trust Arafat?; PLO leader says he wants peace but some Israelis don't believe he is sincere, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), May 19, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION, EDITORIAL/OP-ED; BENJAMIN NETANYAHU; Pg. B3, 760 words, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU; NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, JERUSALEM
 You may consult an abbreviated history of these genocidal attacks, along with the proud statements of the Arab leaders who launched these attacks that they would exterminate the Jews, here:
 A true man of his word, The Jerusalem Post, September 13, 1994, Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 1029 words, YIGAL CARMON
 “...in the fifteen months between Arafat’s establishment in Gaza and the signing of the next accord, Oslo II (September 28, 1995) another ninety people were killed in Palestinian attacks. By way of comparison, Palestinian terror had taken about 400 lives in the twenty-six years from the 1967 war and Israel’s entry into the territories to the inception of Oslo.”
SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.346)
For greater ease of comparison, this means that after Arafat’s PLO was brought inside Israel, the rate of terrorist murders against Israelis by ‘Palestinians’ was equal to 72 people per year. By contrast, before the PLO was brought in, the rate had been around 15 people per year. The Oslo process therefore immediately quintupled the ‘Palestinian’ terrorism against the Israelis.
On April 19th 1994, the Jerusalem Post editorialized as follows:
“IT is a measure of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s distress that in his statement to the Knesset yesterday he found it necessary to enumerate the casualties of terrorism under Likud governments. The recitation was puzzling. No one disputes the persistence of Arab terrorism in this country, nor is there any argument over its being endemic to the region. What troubles Israelis is not merely the recent terrorist acts themselves - although the huge leap in their frequency and severity since September 13 is alarming - but that they are on the rise despite the ‘peace process.’
As Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu pointed out in the Knesset debate, this is precisely what Rabin had promised would not happen. The most fateful Israeli concession since the establishment of the state - the recognition of the PLO, which must inevitably result in the establishment of a Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan - was supposed to drastically reduce terrorism if not completely eliminate it. That terrorist acts have steadily increased is a sad commentary on ‘the process.’”
SOURCE: Arafat's promises, The Jerusalem Post, April 19, 1994, Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 489 words
 Israeli cabinet backs peace deal with PLO; Wave of terrorist attacks put pact at risk, The Toronto Star, December 9, 1994, Friday, METRO EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A21, 445 words, By Bob Hepburn Toronto Star, JERUSALEM
“JERUSALEM - After three days of heated debate, Israel's cabinet agreed yesterday to support its peace agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The entire deal had appeared at risk following demands by several cabinet ministers that Israel renege on its promise to withdraw troops from Arab towns in the West Bank.
...Arafat and Peres, along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, are due to receive the Nobel Peace Prize tomorrow in Oslo for their work in reaching the Israeli-PLO peace deal.”
 “...our leaders’ recent statements that a step-up in terror following the implementation of that first stage is only to be expected, and that the recent aggravation in terror attacks must be understood as a natural outcome of the peace process, [are] cause for grave concern as to the wisdom and possibly even honesty of these leaders.”
SOURCE: Henry Kissinger was so right, The Jerusalem Post, April 22, 1994, Friday, OPINION; Pg. 6A, 1049 words, YOSEF GOELL
Rabin vows never to abandon peace process despite terror attacks, Agence France Presse -- English, December 10, 1994, International news, 560 words, OSLO, Dec 10
 “People always asked, ‘Can you trust Arafat?’ It emerges that he can be trusted,” [Shimon] Peres said.
SOURCE: PALESTINIANS REVOKE CALL TO DESTROY ISRAEL; PARLIAMENT'S MOVE BOOSTS PEACE EFFORT, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), April 25, 1996, Thursday, FIVE STAR LIFT Edition, NEWS; Pg. 1A, 976 words, GAZA CITY, GAZA STRIP
To understand what the PLO Charter calls for, please consult the subheading “The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) denies that ‘Palestine’ exists!” in the following piece:
 “...Shimon Peres, yesterday launched a staunch defence of the man most Israelis believe is orchestrating continuing violence: Mr Yasser Arafat... [even though] he shared Mr [Ariel] Sharon’s assertion that Mr Arafat was sanctioning terrorism.”
 BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: “...the destruction of Israel remains the P.L.O.’s unchanging goal... As recently as May, Abu Nazir, a leader of al Fatah, said: ‘When we demand the establishment of a Palestinian state, or even a Jordan-P.L.O. confederation, this is a strategy leading to the establishment of a state over all of Palestine. The ‘phased policy’ provides us with a springboard towards further goals’...”
 “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.
SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)
 “The Palestinians will soon declare an independent state and no one can stop them, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said yesterday. ...In keeping with Netanyahu’s post-election moderate tone, with which he seeks to reassure people at home and abroad of his commitment to the peace process, his statement did not denounce Arafat’s remarks but rather said the premier-elect ‘sees things differently’ from Arafat on final status talks.”
 “Mr. Netanyahu...has said that he would abide by the accords with the Palestinians if they do, and would consider meeting Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, if necessary. Mr. Sharon has condemned the agreements as ‘terrible and dangerous’ and calls Mr. Arafat a terrorist and war criminal.”
 The following is taken from: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.393-411).
“The most significant for Netanyahu of the pressures to resume negotiations despite PA [Palestinian Authority -- i.e. PLO] non-compliance [i.e. despite PLO sponsorship of terror attacks against innocent Israelis] were those coming from domestic sources and from the Clinton Administration.
...Netanyahu had measures available to him to try and counter both. He could potentially have used his exceptional oratorical skills to go over the heads of political foes and even a hostile Israeli media and effectively present the merits of his positions directly to the Israeli public. In addition, his insistence on PA compliance enjoyed extensive support in the American Congress... But...on August 14, 1996, he reentered negotiations with [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat without having made any headway on the compliance issue.
...[In late 1996] Arafat issued an urgent call to his people to defend the holy sites on the [Temple] Mount [which were in absolutely no danger], and he succeeded in triggering widespread rioting, initially in Jerusalem and then elsewhere as well. In addition, he unleashed his armed forces, including snipers, to attack Israeli soldiers in what became known in Israel as the ‘Checkpoint War.’ In the ensuing four days, fifteen Israeli soldiers were shot dead by Palestinian police and about sixty Palestinians were killed.
In the public relations war that accompanied the battles on the ground, Arafat again bested Netanyahu as he had done vis-à-vis the resumption of negotiations. The Israeli left attacked Netanyahu for allegedly having acted provocatively by opening the tunnel exit [to an excavation near the Temple Mount] and having thereby triggered the violence. The Israeli media echoed this view. Most foreign governments and foreign media took the same stance, with many in the media claiming that Israel had dug a tunnel under the Temple Mount. Again, as any of their correspondents in Jerusalem could have ascertained for themselves, Israel had not dug a tunnel nor was the existing tunnel under the Temple Mount.
The Checkpoint War demonstrated once more Arafat’s continued commitment to using violence and terror as weapons against Israel. But most observers outside the country, and indeed half of Israel, chose to ignore this and to continue perceiving Arafat as Israel’s ‘peace partner.’
...Netanyahu, failing to counter effectively the increased pressure on him mounted in the wake of events around the tunnel opening, responded to the pressure by reentering negotiations with the PA, briefly terminated in the context of the fighting, and by agreeing in the ensuing weeks to terms of withdrawal from Hebron. He did so despite his still not having secured any reversal of the PA’s pattern of noncompliance with its Oslo obligations.
...The Israeli army completed its withdrawal from the ceded areas of Hebron within hours of the Knesset approval of the agreement on January 16. Almost immediately, the PA initiated harassment of the Jewish enclave in Hebron, with rioting, stone throwing, firebombing, and gunfire. This continued on and off thereafter. The [Israeli] government added the events in Hebron to its list of talking points on the Palestinian Authority’s violations of its Oslo commitments and frequently reiterated its demand for reciprocity. But it nevertheless went ahead and offered on March 7 to hand over another 9.1 percent of West Bank territory to the Palestinians as the first of those ‘further deployments’ called for in the Interim Agreement.
...Also during this time, additional incidents of violence, in many instances perpetrated by Palestinian ‘police,’ including terrorist attacks initiated by Palestinian armed forces, added further to the violations invoked by the Netanyahu government in its demands for Palestinian compliance. Among such incidents were the murder of another thirty-eight Israelis, injury of hundreds more, many aborted terrorist attacks, and myriad stonings, firebombings, and acts of arson.
...In January, 1998, the Cabinet unanimously passed a resolution linking further redeployment [i.e. further handing of territory to the PLO’s PA] to PA fulfillment of commitments made or reiterated as part of the Hebron agreement.
But...Israel’s political opposition and media continued to urge [Netanyahu’s] government to move forward with territorial concessions, to advance the ‘process,’ and the [so-called] Peace Movement held rallies protesting the government’s alleged foot-dragging. To the degree that the government’s arguments regarding Palestinian non-compliance and the importance of reciprocity were noted at all, they were characterized as ploys being used by Netanyahu to obstruct ‘progress.’
…the Clinton Administration...effectively rejected Netanyahu’s demands for reciprocity. Indeed, it not only pushed Israel to proceed with territorial concessions without Palestinian compliance but insisted that the next round of territorial concessions exceed the dimensions proposed by the Israelis in March, 1997. Early in 1998, the State Department came up with the figure of 13 percent as the proper size of the next West Bank withdrawal, based not on any consideration of Israel’s strategic position and defense needs but simply on the fact that an additional 13 percent would place the nice round number of 40 percent of the West Bank under Arafat’s control. In effect, the administration reneged both on its formal endorsement of the reciprocity principle in the ‘Note for the Record’ and on its acknowledgment at the time of the Hebron accord that Israel had the right to determine the dimensions of the further interim redeployments.
Once more, there appear to have been steps that Netanyahu could have taken to counter both domestic and American circles that were undermining his stance on Palestinian noncompliance. At home, he could have done more to go over the heads of the opposition parties, the media, and even elements of his fractious coalition who did not fully share his jaundiced views of Oslo. He could have addressed the Israeli public [which public, after all, had elected him to office on an anti-Oslo platform] more directly and more forcefully on the dangers posed by Palestinian policies and evasions.
...When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in the spring of 1998, imperiously, and with veiled threats, summoned Netanyahu to Washington to finalize a 13 percent withdrawal plan, Netanyahu chose to remain at home. In response to this confrontation, many members of Congress publicly and forcefully sided with Netanyahu...
...But [Netanyahu] failed in both the domestic and American arenas to utilize effectively the resources available to him. Domestically, the pressures for more unilateral Israeli concessions persisted unchecked. With the United States, Netanyahu simply yielded and acceded in October, 1998, to attending a summit with Arafat and Clinton at Wye Plantation in order to hammer out a redeployment agreement that was obviously to be based on the American proposals of Israel ceding, an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. ...[Netanyahu ] capitulated, and in doing so not only failed to make effective use of congressional backing but undercut those in Congress who most firmly supported him and had most vociferously argued, with Netanyahu, that a withdrawal of the dimensions prescribed by the administration, at least under current circumstances, posed too great a threat to Israel.”
 “...Sharon met secretly with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s deputy, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), two weeks ago. The fact of the meeting was leaked over the weekend, sending shock waves through right-wing circles. Until now, Sharon, the architect of Israel’s 1982 war against the PLO in Lebanon, has not softened his rejection of the PLO, calling it a terrorist organization and Arafat himself a ‘war criminal.’”
 Here follow Barak’s offers to the Syrians, and then Barak’s offers to the PLO.
BARAK’S OFFERS TO THE SYRIANS:
“With regard to Syria, Barak essentially followed the path of his three predecessors, soon making clear that he was prepared to return the entire Golan to Syrian sovereignty in exchange for ‘peace.’ He apparently did so, again, like his predecessors, with the full expectation that Assad would ultimately accept Israel’s offer...
In December, 1999, Barak began American-mediated negotiations with Syrian foreign minister Farouk al-Shara in Washington. The talks ended without a breakthrough, but over the following weeks Israel continued to pursue a Syrian agreement. The major territorial point of contention, according to news leaks, was whether Israel, in descending from the entire Golan, would withdraw only to the international border or, as Syria demanded, also leave those areas along the Sea of Galilee that Syria had seized [from Israel by force] prior to the 1967 war and that Israel had then retaken [in the war].
Even many supporters of Oslo and of the return of the Golan to Syria balked at Assad’s demand for more. They did so in part for pragmatic reasons, in particular because the additional territory potentially to be ceded, by extending Syrian control to the shores of Galilee, would present critical difficulties such as compromising this key resource of Israel’s water supply. But there were also issues of principle. The Arabs were demanding the return of all territory taken by force of arms and yet they were in this instance insisting that Syria be given territory it had taken by force of arms prior to the 1967 war. Nevertheless Barak, with the support of most of his government, indicated a readiness for additional concessions.
Still, the Syrians would not budge, even refusing to resume direct negotiations. In February, 2000, President Clinton met with Syrian President Assad in Geneva to test Assad’s intention and effect what he anticipated would be a major breakthrough. In the event, Assad indicated that he was unprepared for a full peace with Israel no matter how forthcoming Barak was on ceding territory...
[Just a few months earlier,] Syria’s state-controlled media [had been running] several stories with anti-Semitic themes. One such, in late November , regurgitated the blood libel, the claim that Jews use blood of gentiles for their religious rituals, which was also the theme of a popular book by Syria’s defense minister, Mustafa Tlas (The Matzah of Zion, 1984). An editorial in late January  in Syria’s leading newspaper, Tishreen, a mouthpiece for the Assad regime, focused on denial of the Holocaust while insisting that Israeli policies are worse than those of the Nazis... [Barak’s] most notable comment regarding the Syrian government during this period was his characterization of Assad as a ‘courageous leader’ (November 9, 1999).”
SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.415-416)
BARAK’S OFFERS TO THE PLO:
“Barak…floated the idea of moving directly to final status negotiations, and reports surfaced in the media of secret talks between the parties in which the Israelis indicated the extent of the territorial concessions they were prepared to make as part of a final agreement. Those concessions, according to the reports, encompassed more and more territory as the weeks passed and soon far exceeded what any of the military commentators thought feasible from a strategic perspective, even in the context of a genuine peace. However, the fact that [architect of the Oslo accords] Yossi Beilin, Justice minister in the Barak government, was one of the Israelis allegedly engaged in these talks lent credence to media claims of wholesale territorial concessions, as such a negotiating stance seemed to conform to the territorial offers Beilin had apparently made to the Palestinians during the previous Labor-Meretz government. News leaks triggered rising anticipation of the country again being presented with a Labor-Meretz fait accompli.
These reports of secret talks were surfacing against a background of information that one might have thought would have given the government pause in its proffering of additional concessions. Intelligence assessments provided to Barak in the preceding months informed him that the intensity of Palestinian incitement was increasing and was having an impact in stoking anti-Israel sentiment not only in the territories but also among Israeli Arabs and throughout the Arab states. Moreover, intelligence reports spoke of seeing this sentiment already being translated into increased violence in the territories and within Israel. Barak chose essentially to ignore the import of these assessments, remain silent on the incitement, and press on for an agreement.
In March, 2000, the Foreign Ministry did issue a bulletin expressing concern over increased anti-Israel ‘incitement, hostility, and demonization,’ much of it with anti-Semitic content, emanating from official state media in the Arab world, including official Egyptian media. But the government did not consistently press its concerns, nor did it amend policy in response to this dangerous development.
Also in 2000, media monitoring organizations such as Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI] and Palestinian Media Watch reported on anti-Semitism and delegitimization of Israel not only in Palestinian media and in statements by PA officials but also in the new curriculum and textbooks introduced by the Palestinian Authority for the 2000-2001 school year. For example, Jews are mentioned in the new texts almost exclusively in negative, derogatory terms, and maps consistently omit Israel, depicting all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as ‘Palestine.’ But this latest chapter of the campaign waged in Palestinian classrooms against Israel and the Jews had no impact on the government’s pattern of ignoring Palestinian incitement and violence and pushing ahead with offers of concessions in exchange for ‘peace.’
Despite Barak’s blandishments, however, Arafat, according to media reports, was balking at concluding a final status agreement. Some argued he was holding out for yet more concessions; and various Israelis aligned with the Peace Movement, including members of the government, urged Barak to provide those concessions. But as Arafat made clear in speeches to his own constituency and the wider Arab world and in his actions, he was not interested in signing any final accord.
…Seeing Arafat continuing to balk despite all his blandishments, and expecting that sufficient pressure from Clinton would change Arafat’s stance, Barak began to urge on Clinton a three-way summit to conclude a final settlement.
…As additional leaks emerged of what Barak was offering Arafat in the pre-summit meetings, elements of Barak’s coalition began to abandon the government.
…The rapidly declining support at home for his government, and in particular the very meager public backing for the wholesale concessions he was evidently prepared to make, did not inhibit Barak. He went to Camp David and put on the table, according to what could be gleaned from media reports (there was no official revelation of the proposed Israeli concessions), the transfer of about 95 percent of the West Bank, as well as all of Gaza, to Palestinian sovereignty. This included the Jordan Valley and other territory long deemed vital to Israel’s security and survival, as well as parts of Jerusalem, among them sections of the Old City and perhaps even the Temple Mount…
The summit continued for seventeen days. But, despite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and foreswore any further Palestinian claims.”
SOURCE: SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.419-422)
 “Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin said: ‘Contrary to Arafat, Abu Mazen is against terrorist activity...’”
[22a] THE MAN WHO WOULD BE PRIME MINISTER; The Jerusalem Report, April 3, 2006, Pg. 12, 6263 words, Leslie Susser.
[22b] “1991 -- Bush Sr.’s administration
forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into
the West Bank and Gaza.”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological
look at the evidence; Historical and Investigative Research; by
 “Mr Olmert said ‘we are in a perfect strategic understanding with the US’ on Mr [Mahmoud] Abbas.”
 “Olmert and his colleagues portray Abbas as a central member of a camp of ‘moderates’ which includes the Saudis the Egyptians and the Jordanians.”
SOURCE: Olmert's international coalitions, The Jerusalem Post, July 3, 2007, Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. 15, 1693 words, Caroline B. Glick
 WHITE HOUSE CONDUCTS DAILY PRESS BRIEFING, OCT. 17, US Fed News, October 17, 2006 Tuesday 12:32 AM EST, , 5795 words, US Fed News, WASHINGTON
[Excerpt begins here]
Q: Tony? Two questions. Does the President believe that the American Revolution, led by George Washington, should be compared to Hamas, with their charters Article 15, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and Article 7, which calls for the killing of Jews?
[WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY] MR. [TONY] SNOW: No.
Q: Good. In Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s speech last week to the American Task Force on Palestine, she said, “I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have been humiliated too long.” My question, since the Palestinian Authority’s President, Mahmoud Abbas, co-founded Fatah with Arafat and funded the Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the existence of the Holocaust, how can the President agree with Secretary Rice that it would be a great legacy to have a Palestinian state run by Abbas and Hamas?
MR. SNOW: I believe he did not say, run by Abbas and Hamas. But on the other hand, Prime Minister Abbas has also demonstrated a willingness to pursue democracy and work directly with Israel. And he stands absolutely behind what the Secretary of State said.
[Excerpt ends here]
Notice that the White House did not make any effort to deny Abbas’s role in the Munich Massacre.
 After Yasser Arafat died, the Fatah terrorists who publicly cried against ‘peace’ and promised to go on killing innocent Israelis were precisely those most eager to see Mahmoud Abbas succeed Yasser Arafat as Fatah chief.
An Associated Press wire dated 27 November 2004 reports that:
“. . .in the Balata refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus, about 1,000 Palestinians -- including scores of armed, masked militants affiliated with Fatah -- demonstrated for the continuation of the uprising.
The demonstrators also declared their support for Mahmoud Abbas, the new head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah’s candidate in Jan. 9 presidential elections.”(a)
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade branch of Fatah -- considered “the deadliest Palestinian militia” (b) -- was passionate, taking Abbas’s side vociferously when it seemed like Marwan Barghouti, another Fatah leader, might seek the post:
“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects. . . Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti. . .should resign from Fatah,’ he told the Associated Press.”(c)
SOURCES USED IN THIS FOOTNOTE:
(a) Associated Press Online, November 27, 2004 Saturday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 991 words, Palestinian Security Unit to Be Disbanded, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip.
(b) Newsday (New York, NY), September 8, 2002 Sunday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION, Pg. A05, 1333 words, WEST BANK; Inside the Crucible; An occasional series on te Israel-Palestine conflict; Militia Goes More Quietly; Al-Aqsa changes tactics after losses, By Matthew McAllester. MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT
(c) Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank
 “Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu is urging that Jordanian troops help secure the West Bank. ...We have to shore up the Abbas government he told reporters.”
is the problem with the Israeli ruling elite? Is it stupidity? Or is it
something else?”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE, An HIR series;
Historical and Investigative Research; 12 September 2006; by Francisco
“HAMAS VS. FATAH: A CURIOUS ‘FIGHT’: What if Hamas and Fatah are not really
enemies?” Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2007; by Francisco
“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then
the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT;
An HIR Series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June
2006; by Francisco Gil-White
 Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (78-82)
 Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)
The title of the New York Times piece on this demonstration says
100,000 people, but the body of the article reveals that the New York City
policy was estimating the crowd at 250,000. You may read this New York
Times article here:
To see this demonstration in its historical context, please consult:
 For the documentation on this, please consult the following pieces:
 “Grasshopper Alert”; SHUL NEWSLETTER; Vol 1 No 43; 22 Sivan 5767 (June 8, 2007); By Moshe Feiglin, Candidate for Prime Minister