Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list

Understanding Annapolis

An HIR Series

Historical and Investigative Research - 23 November 2007 [edited for clarity, 23 August, 2010]
by Francisco Gil-White

1  |  2  |  3 




The Arab League, then and forever

What is the Arab League hoping to achieve in Annapolis?


Table of Contents

Preface: Does the Arab League want to kill Jews?

The stability of institutional ideology

First, the general point.

If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?

The Arab League, and the Arab Higher Committee

The Arab League and the War of 1948

The Arab League, Al Fatah, the PLO, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’

And now, Annapolis

Conclusion: The passage of time has changed nothing


Preface: Does the Arab League want to kill Jews?

The states of the Arab League are pushing very hard to produce a PLO state on Israel’s flank. They are hoping to get one at the Annapolis Conference. In public, the states of the Arab League say they are looking for justice for the Palestinian Arabs. Are these their true intentions? I believe that one can go a long ways toward answering that question by looking at the origin and development of the Arab League. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained his organization’s ideology when the League launched a war of aggression against the Israeli Jews in 1948: “This will be a war of extermination...”[1]

Many believe, however, that investigating the origins of an organization is the wrong way to understand it, so I will begin with a few words in favor of my method.

The stability of institutional ideology

Many people, I have found, hold the following folk theory about institutions: the passage of time will alter their ideology. As members die or leave and are replaced with others, the institution will change because people have all kinds of different ideologies. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that after 60 years, say, the ideology of an institution will remain the same. I think this is backwards: the burden of proof, in my view, is on whoever affirms that the ideology of an institution has changed. I will defend that the Arab League, like most other institutions, has today the same ideology it had on the day it was founded. For the Arab League this is the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

First, the general point.

What is an institution? It is a network of organized relationships between people whose individual roles are defined by their kind of membership -- i.e. their 'position' -- in the organized network. To know your position is to know what your job is, what rules you must follow (issues of what you have clearance for and what is off-limits), what powers you have over those below you, and what powers those above you have over you. The individuals in the various positions will all die (eventually), and they may leave the institution even before passing away, but the institution survives because new people are always being recruited to the vacancies. The institution survives because it reproduces its structure, that is, the patterned organization of relationships. An institution is potentially eternal; the Catholic Church, for example, is 2000 years old.

If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?

Imagine institution V, created to promote vegetarianism, and run, naturally, by vegetarians. There are 10 people in the executive board. One day, at time = t, one of the board members dies. What kind of a person will the remaining 9 members look for? Another vegetarian. A meat-eater might be recruited to fill relatively low positions that are strongly utilitarian: for example, an expert in marketing might be hired even if he eats meat, because he is a mercenary who will do his contract job. But it would be remarkable for this institution to hire meat eaters to the governing board, where policy decisions are made. Given that at time = t vacancies were filled, and especially in the upper echelons, with vegetarians, the vacancies at time t+1 will also be filled with vegetarians, because once again those doing the selecting are surviving vegetarians. And so forth. There is no reason to expect that the passage of time will turn this vegetarianism-promoting institution into an institution that celebrates meat because the ideology of the institution creates a selection pressure in the recruiting process that works to keep the ideology stable.

Now let’s consider the Arab League. The question we must answer is this one:

If the Arab League meant, at its inception, to exterminate the Israeli Jews, is it possible that the Arab League, today, means to make peace with the Israeli Jews?

We shall here examine a few important policies of the early Arab League, then follow it through time, in order to answer this question.

The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee

Avi Shlaim explains that

“In the aftermath of World War II, when the struggle for Palestine was approaching its climax, the Palestinians were in a weak and vulnerable position. Their weakness was clearly reflected in their dependence on the Arab states and on the recently-founded Arab League. Thus, when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League.”[2]

Shlaim is one of the so-called ‘New Historians’ who have made it a specialty to defend the justice of the ‘Palestinian Arab’ movement. To those familiar with the history of British Mandate Palestine, in the above paragraph Shlaim's bias is evident in his refying as 'Palestinians' those Muslims then living there. Actually, most of these were recent immigrants form other places, and nobody there called himself a ‘Palestinian,’ except for some Zionist Jews. I have quoted Shlaim to make clar what even defenders of the 'Palestinian movement' are forced to concede: the organism created to speak for the Muslims of Palestine was not called the Palestinian Arab Committee but the Arab Higher Committee.

What was the Arab Higher Committee? According to Shlaim, the AHC had been created in 1936 by “the various Palestinian political parties themselves” to represent the Muslims in Palestine. Not true. In reality, it was Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the AHC.

Here follows the context.

Hajj Amin al Husseini had organized two large Muslim terrorist riots against civilian Jews in British Mandate Palestine in 1920 and 1921, after which the British governing authorities -- which had assisted those anti-Jewish attacks -- made him Mufti of Jerusalem, transforming the office so that it had unprecedented power over the Muslim courts, mosques, taxes, schools, etc. They also gave him a generous British subsidy. (The British authorities wanted to derail the Zionist project, but they didn’t want to look like anti-Semites because many in the British public supported Zionism; so they quietly promoted Muslim violence against the Jews in order to claim that Zionism -- building a home for the Jews in their ancestral land -- was impossible).[3]

Husseini used his British-backed power to launch jihad: the murder of infidels who refuse to convert to Islam or be the slaves of Muslims. The targets of his jihad were the Jews. There was a much larger terrorist riot in 1929, and then an even bigger and more sustained attack, lasting from 1936 to 1939. The last one was organized with weapons supplied by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and received much assistance in weaponry and personnel from nearby Arab states.[3]

Throughout his career, Husseini used his terrorists to intimidate and murder any Muslims in Palestine who tried to get along with the Jews, or sold land to Jews. This allowed Husseini, a scion of one of the largest feudal landholding families in Palestine, to buy through his relatives the plots of Muslim smallholders at bargain prices, consolidate them, and then resell them to the Zionists for very high prices. All the while, he accused anybody else selling land to the Jews of treason. It was this Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the Arab Higher Committee, during the ‘Arab Revolt,’ in order to destroy all opposition to his views and concentrate all Muslim political authority in his hands.[3]

Shlaim’s claim is not merely false; is the precise opposite of the truth. The “various political parties” of the Muslims in Mandate Palestine did not create the Arab Higher Committee; rather, the Arab Higher Committee was created to destroy the “various political parties.” (Orwellian Newspeak is the mother tongue of the anti-Israeli ‘New Historians.’)

The Arab Higher Committee was obviously not created to represent the interests of ordinary Muslims in Palestine. 1) The Mufti Husseini was using terrorists to steal their land; 2) in the general strike that his gangsters enforced it was especially the Muslim economy that was hurt; 3) in the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39 that resulted from the strike, “the Mufti’s forces killed more than four hundred Jews and several thousand Arabs” who didn’t want to kill Jews.[4] And why didn’t they? Because the Zionist Jews had produced an economic boom, and in those days most Arabs in Palestine, oppressed by feudal lords like Husseini, thought that new economic opportunities were a good thing.

In late 1941, Hajj Amin al Husseini moved to Berlin and met with Hitler. When he arrived, Husseini had 20 years experience (much more than the Nazis) murdering innocent Jews. Historians agree that before the fall of 1941, the Nazis, though certainly not shy about killing Jews, preferred to expel the majority to Palestine. In fact, one of chief Nazi exterminator Adolf Eichmann’s top lieutenants, Dieter Wisliceny, testified at Nuremberg that Husseini had been the one to convince Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann not to expel any Jews from Europe to Palestine, but instead to kill them all. Wisliceny also testified that Husseini had subsequently become an equal partner with Adolf Eichmann in the implementation and administration of the Final Solution, from the time of the fateful decision to kill all the Jews -- in the Wansee Conference of January 1942 (shortly after Husseini met with Hitler on 28 November 1941) -- till the end.[5]

Avi Shlaim tells us that, after the World War, the Arab League (whose leading member was Egypt) recreated the Arab Higher Committee. What was the point of this? To give a voice to the Muslims in Mandate Palestine? On the contrary. Hajj Amin al Husseini, one of history’s greatest butchers of Jews, and no friend of ordinary Muslims in Mandate Palestine, was now living in Cairo under protection of the Egyptian government. It was Husseini, once again, who controlled the Arab Higher Committee, this time from Egypt.

The Arab League was preparing another attack against the Jewish people, using the Muslims in Mandate Palestine -- the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs’ -- as pawns in its great game. The new attack was the War of 1948.

The Arab League and the War of 1948

Shortly after the Arab League’s recreation of the Arab Higher Committee in 1946, the United Nations voted to create a state for the Muslims living in Mandate Palestine, and another state for the Jews. Today the Arab states holler loudly that a state must be created for the ‘Palestinian Arabs’ in order to do them ‘justice.’ But when this state was approved by the UN in 1947 the entire Arab world rejected it. Their concern was clearly not to create a self-governing state for the Muslims in Palestine, but to prevent any opportunity for the Jews to have their own.

Was this because they hated Jews as such? Consider: when the UN voted to create a Jewish State, the Arab League drafted a series of laws that it meant to impose on any Jews living in any Arab State, even though the overwhelming majority of these Jews were not Zionists and had had nothing to do with the creation of Israel. To get a sense for these laws, consider the following:

[Quotation begins here (go to the source)]



In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League (League of Arab States) drafted a law which was to govern the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League countries. This law had already been approved by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, provided that, “beginning with a specified date, all Jews -- with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries -- were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Palestine,’ and that their bank account be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Palestine.’ Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated. Only Jews who accept active service in Arab armies or place themselves at the disposal of these armies would be considered ‘Arabs.’”[6]

Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League:

-- “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Palestine and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”[7]

-- “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine.”[8]

-- “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”[9]

-- “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”[10]

-- “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”[11]

-- “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”[12]

[Quotation ends here]

These laws are quite similar to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, and they prompted an article in the New York Times by Mallory Browne with the headline JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS.[13] It was published on 16 May 1948, and in a sense was already outdated because by then the Arab states had launched themselves in war against the newly-created state of Israel. These laws certainly suggest that the ruling elites of the Arab League had something against Jews for being Jews.

If there were any doubts about that, the Arab League explained out loud that they meant to continue Adolf Hitler’s great mass killing, so fresh that Europe still reeked of blood. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League promised:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[14]

This was the War of 1948, the Israeli War of Independence, which might as well be called the War of National Survival.

During this war of attempted extermination, the Arab League was assisted by the British and United States governments. This included sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented in a landmark exposé, published in furious tones, by The Nation.[14a]

Despite all this, the Arab League lost the War of 1948. Kudos go to the fighting spirit of the Israeli Jews, and to the Czechoslovaks, who assisted the Israeli efforts with arms shipments.[18]

After the defeat, the member states of the Arab League expelled the Jews who lived in these countries, and a great many took refuge in Israel. This was such a large population that Jews from Arab-speaking countries, overnight, became the majority in the Jewish State.

The Arab League, Al Fatah, the PLO, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’

In the 1950s important German Nazi fugitives came to Egypt to improve the deadliness of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military and intelligence services. These were Hajj Amin al Husseini’s old friends, and some of them had been his subordinates in the Final Solution. Thus, under protection of Arab League leader Egypt, Husseini had his Nazi friends train Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and other adolescent recruits of his, creating the group known as Al Fatah.[19]

What was the purpose of Al Fatah? The same that Azzam Pasha explained was the purpose of the parent organization, the Arab League: the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[20] The Arab League also played a role in the creation of the PLO. Mitchell Bard writes that “the Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel.”[21] Is he right? Yes. The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.[21a]

Al Fatah swallowed the PLO in 1968. By 1970, writes historian Howard Sachar,

“the PLO had experienced less a revival than a total reincarnation of membership and purpose under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Consisting ostensibly of representatives of all guerilla organizations, the PLO in its resurrected form was almost entirely Fatah-dominated, and Arafat himself served as president of its executive. In this capacity he was invited to attend meetings of the Arab League, and won extensive subsidies from the oil-rich governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.”[24]

As this was happening, during the years 1967-70, Arab League leader Egypt launched a sustained series of attacks against Israel that have been called the War of Attrition. It couldn’t defeat Israel, so it launched a new war: the Yom Kippur War.[25]

Israel won.

It was immediately after this, in the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, that “the heads of state present... recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.”[27] Given the trajectory of the Arab League up to here, the obvious hypothesis is that the Arab League decided to try a ‘Trojan Horse’ pseudo-diplomatic approach, promising peace in exchange for getting the PLO into the Jewish State, the better to exterminate the Israeli Jews (since direct military attacks always failed to bring about this result).

But we don’t have to guess. Mahmoud Abbas, from his perch as president of the Palestine National Council, the governing body of PLO/Fatah, is who authored the ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy.[36] Lie now, kill Jews later. Officially within PLO/Fatah, this is called the Plan of Phases, and it was announced in 1974, right after the Arab defeat in the Yom Kippur War:

“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.”[37]

The diplomatic push to create a ‘Palestinian State’ was in fact led by US President Jimmy Carter,[28] and it intensified in the second half of the 1980s. From this point onwards, the main strategy would be to get the PLO – i.e. Hajj Amin al Husseini’s Al Fatah, and therefore the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution -- into the Jewish State. The United States has continued to play a leading role in this.[29] As a result of all this, PLO/Fatah has now been transformed into the ‘Palestinian Authority.’

The US and British governments are pushing very hard for this process to conclude with the creation of a PLO/Fatah state, cleansed of Jews, in Judea and Samaria, territories that the US military in 1967 concluded are strategic territories without which Israel cannot survive.[33]

And now, Annapolis...

In a few days, the Annapolis Conference is scheduled to begin. The Arab League is pushing hard for PLO/Fatah to receive a state on strategic territory now controlled by Israel. The Israeli government, with close to zero support from Israeli citizens,[34] is expected to make a commitment to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah. In anticipation of this, some US congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for Mahmoud Abbas to Change the Fatah Charter so that it no longer calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[35] Please resist the urge to cheer this. If these congressmen succeed, they will have given Al Fatah the opportunity to appear ‘well-intentioned’ in the context of the final handover negotiations. But there would be absolutely no reason to believe such a Fatah statement if it was made.

The argument I defended at the top, about the stability of the founding ideology of an institution despite changes in personnel, naturally applies to Al Fatah. But in fact I need not invoke it, because Al Fatah is still run by one of the people who founded it: Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. as Abu Mazen): “Abu Mazen is... one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[38] As noted above, he was trained by Hajj Amin al Husseini, great architect of the German Nazi Final Solution.

Conclusion: The passage of time has changed nothing

The Arab League has the same ideology that it had at its inception, and it is being supported, as it was back then, by powerful Western sponsors. The same goes for the organizational offshoots of the Arab League, which are naturally tools of its policies. What is being prepared is another genocide of the Jewish people. If the Israeli government continues to participate in this process, it will happen. And it appears that the Israeli government is in fact in something of a hurry: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has just approved equipping PLO/Fatah with sophisticated Russian APC's (Armored Personnel Carriers)! [39]


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


The Oslo Process has allowed the Arab League to place its tool, PLO/Fatah, in a highly strategic highland position from which to attack the Jews, who are trapped in a very narrow lowland with their backs against the sea, as can be appreciated in the following two maps:

 Click to enlarge

Perhaps you think that PLO/Fatah, itself, is not the greatest military danger to the Israeli Jews, but the same cannot be said for the Arab League as a whole, and behind PLO/Fatah is the Arab League. Since the 1970s especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been armed to the teeth by the United States. And there is also Iran, which will soon have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel, once the US troops leave. Why? Because the US invasion of Iraq has given that country to Iran, which controls the Iraqi shiites now in power, and Iran already holds sway over Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli government uses Israeli troops to expel Jews from their homes rather than to defend them from attack, the next all-out attack against Israel may well succeed where others have failed, and the Arab League will achieve its goal: extermination.

The next piece in this series is:

Annapolis: The strategic aftermath
What is being prepared for the Israeli Jews (and the Christians)?


Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[2] Shlaim, A. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza. Journal of Palestine Studies 20:37-53.

[3] Everything in this paragraph is documented in detail in the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.


“Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.}

[4] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.219)

[5] To see a detailed documentation of this, please consult:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

[6] Memorandum Submitted to the U.N. Economic and Social Council by the World Jewish Congress. (Jan. 19, 1948) Section I. (2) a. June 2, 1948. [ZIIC - This reference is in the document prepared by JJAC and is probably incorrect]

[7] Text of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League. Paragraph 1.

[8] ibid. Paragraph 2.

[9] ibid. Paragraph 3.

[10] ibid. Paragraph 5.

[11] ibid. Paragraph 6.

[12] ibid. Paragraph 7. (Paragraph 1 & 2 indicate all Jews must register and disclose personal and banking information and that bank accounts will be frozen and utilized for anti-Zionist resistance.)


[14] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[14a] It was the British government, recall, that had created Hajj Amin al Husseini.[5] It was also the British government that created the Arab League. When the Arab League attempted to destroy the new Jewish State in its cradle during the War of 1948, the British government allied with the Arab League’s attack, and in some ways led it (see below).

“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

…The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”(a)

But that’s nothing: the British government sent captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented by The Nation in 1948, which published documents from British and French intelligence to show it in furious articles.(b)

What about the United States? It is true that earlier the United States had voted in favor of partitioning the Mandate territory, but the entire State Department was opposed and the US vote in favor happened only after the embarrassment of a passionate UN General Assembly speech by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in favor of a state for the persecuted Jews.(c) The United States did not want to seem less anti-Nazi than the Soviets. But once the Arab League had attacked, with its chances looking good, the US government announced that it no longer recognized the State of Israel and placed an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews.(d)


(a) Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

(b) Two pieces:

1)  “The British Record on Partition”; The Nation; 8 May 1948.

(to read the above in text format, visit: )

2) “Nazi Prisoners in Egypt’s Army: A French Intelligence Report”; The Nation; 22 January 1949; p.89.

(c) For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:

(d) Wrote the New York Times in April 1948:

“...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Palestine.”

Actually, the crowd was larger. Further down in the same article we read:

“The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square.”

SOURCE: 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.

The mayor of Tel Aviv at the time, Israel Rokach, explained the impact of the embargo:

“The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin al Husseini], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”

SOURCE: U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; Jan 17, 1948; pg. 4.

[18] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.42)

[19] To see the documentation on the Nazi origins of Al Fatah, consult the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.


“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.

[20] Article 12 of the Fatah Charter calls for the “Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence.” How do you eradicate the “economic, political, military, and cultural existence” of the Israeli Jews? Why, by eradicating the Jews themselves. Further clarifying its intentions, Article 17 of the Fatah Charter states that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.” In other words, ‘Palestine’ can only be ‘liberated’ in the process of murdering Jews (since this method is “inevitable”). If this were not clear enough, Article 19 states that “armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic.” In other words, armed struggle -- killing Jews -- is not a means to an end but the end itself. The same article explains that the killing will not stop “unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

[21] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.69)

[21a] ...The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.

This is easily demonstrated.

The 1964 PLO Covenant or Charter in fact explicitly states that the West Bank, Gaza, and Himmah -- which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively had occupied during the War of 1948 and were still sitting on -- were not part of ‘Palestine.’ These lands had all been part of British Mandate Palestine. And yet it was quite all right, the PLO stated, for Jordan, Egypt, and Syria to have those three territories, even though the PLO was defining ‘Palestine’ as British Mandate Palestine. But this made perfect sense: the PLO was an Arab League creation, and the states of the Arab League would not have the PLO contesting their control of the parts of ‘Palestine’ that they had occupied. Which ‘Palestine’ did the PLO mean to ‘liberate,’ then? Answer: whatever land the Jews were living on: Israel. This was conclusively demonstrated in the rewritten 1968 PLO Charter. In this document the PLO removed the clause concerning the West Bank and Gaza and from this point onwards did lay claim now to a ‘Palestine’ that includes the West Bank and Gaza.(a) What happened? The Six-Day War of 1967. In that war, provoked by the Arab League members who once again did their best to try and exterminate the Israeli Jews, the Israelis managed to capture Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza, among other territories, and subsequently Jews returned to live there (Jews had been living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza before they were massacred or forced to flee in the War of 1948). This demonstrates that there is no reality to ‘Palestine’; its boundaries are arbitrarily redrawn so that the territory to be ‘liberated’ will correspond to the one that Jews live on.

And by the word ‘liberate’ the PLO means the same thing that Al Fatah means: kill Jews. This, too, is easily demonstrated.

The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” This could be rewritten like so: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine”; and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating the presence of “Zionists.”(b) Like its parent organization (the Arab League), the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews.


(a) Article 24 of the 1964 Charter states: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”

In the 1968 Charter, the above renunciation of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza was removed:

(b) Translation of the PLO Charter articles by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[24] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.698)


“On October 6, 1973 -- Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar -- Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated attack against Israel. The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel’s borders. On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.”(a)

The Arabs received assistance from the Soviet Union. When this happened, the US, which had been resisting Israeli calls for help, airlifted military supplies.(b) This was atypical: in previous conflicts the US had not helped, or had taken measures against Israel, but with Cold War prestige at stake, and given the popularity of Israel with the US population, the US government decided it could not afford to stay on the sidelines.


(a) Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.74)

(b) The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but “Washington’s reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria.”

SOURCE: "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003

[27] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[28] 1977 -- Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[29] In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon to put an end to the PLO/Fatah’s attacks against civilians in northern Israel, the US government stopped the Israelis in time to give PLO/Fatah a military escort to its new base in Tunis and save it from destruction.(a) Later, the US government began making policy statements to the effect that a PLO/Fatah state should be created in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).(b) And soon after that the US government threatened the Israelis with the loss of all assistance if they did not attend the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, whose purpose was, precisely, to bring the PLO/Fatah into Israel and to give it ever more power inside the Jewish State.(c) With this accomplished, the US intelligence services began arming and training PLO/Fatah.(d)


(a) 1982-83 -- 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.

(b) 1989 -- With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

(c) 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.

(d) 1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[33] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."

It is also republished as an appendix in:

Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[34] As of May 2007 “[Olmert’s] approval rating hovers around 3%.”

SOURCE: “Olmert Under Fire”; Time; Thursday, May. 03, 2007,9171,1617518,00.html

[35] “American Jewry: Fatah Charter Calls to 'Eradicate' Israel”; Israel National News; 11 Kislev 5768, November 21, '07; by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

[36]  2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas is who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[37] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] SOURCE: THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR PALESTINE; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST

[39] DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming Palestinian West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets; November 21, 2007, 9:38 PM (GMT+02:00).

   Part 1 - What you don't know could cost you.

 Part 2 - The Arab League, then and forever

 Part 3 - Annapolis: The strategic aftermath


Detailed poll results show intense Israeli Jewish opposition to Israeli government, US positions
IMRA  November 15, 2007
go to original )

Selected questions below:

1. In your opinion, is Abu Mazen and his government able or unable today to prevent terror attacks and the firing of rockets against Israel from the areas of Judea and Samaria?

Unable 77%
Maybe 10% Able 12% Other replies 1%

2. Should Israel withdraw from the territories of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, what do you think the chances are that Hamas takes over these areas?

High to Very High 65%
Middle chance 21%  Very low chance 7%  No chance 5%

3. In your opinion, what are the chances that rockets will be fired at Israeli cities should the IDF withdraw from areas in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem?

High to Very High 55%
Middle chance 21%  Very low chance 7%  No chance 5%  Other replies 2%

5. In light of the current situation of the PA, do you support or oppose Israel committing to transfer sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians?

Oppose 78%
Maybe 9% Support 11% Other replies 2%

6. In light of the current situation of the PA, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to transfer parts of Jerusalem to Palestinian control?

Oppose 69%
Maybe 11% Support 17% Other replies 3%

7. In light of the current situation of the PA, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to remove the IDF from most of Judea and Samaria, and transfer it to Palestinian control?

Oppose 61%
Maybe 15% Support 22% Other replies 2%

8. In light of the experience with the disengagement, do you support or oppose that Israel should commit to a mass evacuation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria?

Oppose 65%
Maybe 13% Support 19% Other replies 3%

9.In light of past experience, do you believe that the evacuation of communities and withdrawal of the IDF from territories strengthens or weakens Israel security and international standing?

Weakens 59%
Strengthens 33% Other replies 8%

10. Do you support or oppose the proposal according to which the State of Israel will offer reasonable compensation to Palestinians in Judea and Samaria in order that they agree to emigrate to other countries?

Support 54%
Oppose 38% Other replies 8%

11. Do you agree or disagree with the claim that today, in retrospect, the drive to achieve peace with the Palestinians has done damage to the State of Israel?

Agree 52%
Disagree 40% Other replies 8%

12. Do you agree or disagree with the claim that in light of the experience of the past Israel should deal with the Palestinians with a tougher approach and not seek simple ways to solve the Israel-Arab conflict?

Agree 65%
Disagree 28% Other replies 7%

18. Minister Eli Yishai, chairman of the Shas Party, said a number of weeks ago that Shas will not give its hand to the division of Jerusalem. In light of this declaration, do you think that Shas should leave the Olmert Government if an agreement is signed with Abu Mazen that includes the division of Jerusalem?

Should 60%
Should not 29%  Other replies 11%

19. What do you think is closer to the truth?

65% The main motive of Shas in its decisions on policy is the desire to retain the positions and budgets that they have within the framework of the Olmert Government

29% The main motive of Shas in its decisions on policy is the national interest of Israel

20. Minister of Education Yuli Tamir decided recently to include in the history books used in Israeli schools information according to which some Israeli Arabs see the War of Independence of Israel as "Nakba", namely a national disaster for the Palestinian People. Do you support or oppose Minister Tamir's decision?

Oppose 63%
Support 32%  Other replies 5%

















































U.S. applauds Arab League attendance at Annapolis

Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:07pm EST
By Sue Pleming
go to original )

WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - The United States on Friday welcomed a decision by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to attend a Middle East peace conference in Maryland and said this indicated the U.S.-hosted meeting would be serious.

A meeting in Cairo of key Arab League countries agreed on Friday to attend the Annapolis, Maryland, conference the United States hopes will launch serious Palestinian statehood negotiations for the first time in seven years.

Attendance by Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, which has been skeptical of U.S. efforts at Arab-Israeli peacemaking, was seen as crucial to the success and credibility of the meeting.

"We welcome the decision by the Arab League follow-up committee to attend the Annapolis conference at the ministerial level. This is a signal they believe this will be a serious and substantive meeting," said State Department spokesman Karl Duckworth.

The Cairo meeting brought together foreign ministers from the contact group delegated by the Arab League to follow up on a 2002 Arab peace initiative, as well as ministers from some other Arab countries and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Saudi Arabia had been noncommittal over attending the Annapolis conference but Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, who spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by telephone on Friday, told reporters he planned to go.

Diplomats had said earlier that Saudi Arabia was considering sending a lower-level official to Annapolis, which would have been a blow to the United States.


U.S. President George W. Bush called Saudi King Abdullah this week to speak about Annapolis and Britain's former prime minister and Middle East peace envoy, Tony Blair, traveled to Saudi Arabia to urge Riyadh's cooperation.

"The Annapolis conference will show broad international support for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders' efforts and will be a launching point for negotiations leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace," Duckworth said.

Israeli and Palestinian delegations are expected to arrive in Washington over the weekend ahead of the conference and a senior State Department official said Rice was likely to meet both sides on Sunday before their talks with Bush on Monday.

The United States is looking to hold another international Middle East meeting in three to six months if the Annapolis conference went as planned, said a European diplomat.

The senior State Department official said nothing had been finalized yet and there would be discussions on what followed Annapolis during meetings over the next few days.

Washington is also expected to push its allies and Arab countries attending the Annapolis meeting to dig deep for a Palestinian donors' conference planned for Paris in mid-December.

Syria has been invited to the Annapolis conference as part of the Arab League contact group. Damascus has indicated it will attend only if the Golan Heights, which was seized from it in 1967, is discussed at the talks.

Syria said it had been told Golan would be on the agenda at Annapolis, but a State Department spokesman declined to confirm whether it had told Damascus this.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Rice said while the Annapolis conference was aimed at dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian track, no one would stop Syria from speaking about the Golan Heights.

"If Syria chooses to come and wants to speak to its issues, since its issues are detailed in the road map and are a part of a comprehensive peace, certainly nobody is going to rule it out of order," Rice said.

The senior State Department official said it was unlikely there would be a separate session at Annapolis on Golan but that it would be included in a discussion on a "comprehensive peace" plan. (Editing by Mohammad Zargham)










Column One: American Folly

The Jerusalem Post; Nov 22, 2007
By Caroline Glick

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

( continue reading this article )




































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list