|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Leaders Lied, Jews died. Why have Israeli leaders been lying to their fellow
citizens Historical and Investigative Research
- 10 July 2007 Short Preface 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.’ ”[1] 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.[2] 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. This latter point is the most important
issue. 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. ___________________________________________________________ How Israeli leaders defended the Oslo process (with
lies) 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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).[6] Soon after, Peres, together with then Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- the latter elected on his solemn campaign promise not
to negotiate with Fatah[7] --
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.[8] 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.”[9] 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.[10] 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.’[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.”[14] 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).[16] 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.”[17] 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.”[18] Netanyahu went on to push the
Oslo process even faster than his Labor predecessors.[19] 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.’”[20] 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.[21] 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...’”[22] 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.”[23]
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.[24] 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),[25] and the same Mahmoud Abbas
whom the very worst Fatah terrorists were most eager to see succeed Arafat at
the head of Fatah.[26] 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.”[28] 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).[29] 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).[30] 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.[31] 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.[31] 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.[31] 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),[32] 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.”[33] At this demonstration, Hajj
Amin al Husseini, a leader of the 1948 attack, was denounced by name over the
loudspeakers.[34] 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.[35]
(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.”[36] 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?”[37] Soon after this Manhigut Yehudit issued a press
release in which it explained to its audience the Nazi origins of Fatah/PLO.[38]
If only more Israelis knew what Fatah/PLO really is,
then they could make informed choices, which are the basis of true political
freedom. |
Shimon Peres ( 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.”
Benjamin Netanyahu ( 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.”
Ariel Sharon ( 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...’”
Ehud Olmert ( 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 [1]
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.348) [2]
“HAMAS VS. FATAH: A CURIOUS ‘FIGHT’; What if Hamas and Fatah are not really
enemies?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2007; by Francisco
Gil-White. [3]
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
Gil-White. [4]
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. [5]
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. [6]
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. [7] 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 [8]
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:
[9] A
true man of his word, The Jerusalem Post, September 13, 1994, Tuesday,
OPINION; Pg. 6, 1029 words, YIGAL CARMON [10]
“...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 [11]
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.” [12]
“...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 [13]
“People always asked, ‘Can you trust Arafat?’ It emerges that he can be
trusted,” [Shimon] Peres said.[13] 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:
[14]
“...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.”
[15]
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’...”
[16]
“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) [17]
“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.”
[18]
“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.”
[19]
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.” [20]
“...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.’”
[21]
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 [1999], 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 [2000] 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) [22]
“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
Francisco Gil-White [23] “Mr Olmert said ‘we are in a
perfect strategic understanding with the US’ on Mr [Mahmoud] Abbas.”
[24]
“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 [25]
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. [26]
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 [28]
“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.”
[29] “What
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
Gil-White. [30]
“HAMAS VS. FATAH: A CURIOUS ‘FIGHT’: What if Hamas and Fatah are not really
enemies?” Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2007; by Francisco
Gil-White. [31]
“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 [32]
Pearlman, M. 1947. Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini.
London: V Gollancz. (78-82) [33]
Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time.
New York: Knopf. (p.333) [34]
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:
[35]
For the documentation on this, please consult the following pieces:
[36]
“Grasshopper Alert”; SHUL NEWSLETTER; Vol 1 No 43; 22 Sivan 5767 (June 8,
2007); By Moshe Feiglin, Candidate for Prime Minister [37]
“Here Comes the Likud Election!”; SHUL NEWSLETTER; Vol 1 No 47; 20 Tammuz
5767 (July 6, 2007); By Moshe Feiglin, Candidate for Prime Minister.
|
|
