My new column, “The Final Solution to the Jewish State,” is about “archetype Amalekites,” who dabble in “Palestinian replacement theology, speak of the existence of Israel as a sin,” and promote “the concept of the Palestinian Jesus.” They are “pirating ancient Jewish history by superimposing Palestinian fiction on it,” and are “engaged in the ultimate identity theft so as to bring about the end of the Jewish state as we know it.”
Category Archives: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Abu Mazen—A Man of Peace?
In my last column, “Qassam Rockets ‘R’ Us,” I pointed out that Abbas (aka Abu Mazen), Israel’s “partner in peace, signed an accord with Hamas this week that—supports armed action and terrorism against Israel and does not restrict ‘resistance’ to areas occupied by Israel in 1967.’ Retired Ambassador Yoram Ettinger offers a precis of this accord (known as the “Prisoners’ Document”), and fills in some of the blanks our media malpractitioners refrain from reporting:
Notwithstanding Abu Mazen’s seemingly moderate appearance, his embrace of the “Prisoners’ Document” has reaffirmed the fundamentals of his own hate-education: idolizing homicide bombers, the “claim of return”, terrorism and the inadmissibility of the Jewish State.
1. FIVE LEADING TERRORISTS compiled the “Prisoners’ Document”, which has been embraced by Abu Mazen: Fatah’s Marwan Barghouti, serving 5 terms of life imprisonment, Hamas’ Abd Al-Khaliq Al-Natsheh, Islamic Jihad’s Bassam Al- Saadi, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s Abd Al-Rahim Mallouh and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s Mustafa Badarneh.
2. THE GOAL of the “Document” is to restore coordination between the PLO and Hamas, while adhering to the fundamentals of the Palestinian attitude toward the “Zionist Entity”. The goal is not to advance peace with Israel, but to clarify that “Palestinian Unity” supersedes any agreement signed with Israel.
3. THE “CLAIM OF RETURN” by Palestinian refugees to the pre-1967 area of Israel is emphasized five times in the “Document”. The “Claim of Return” is a euphemism for the inadmissibility of the Jewish State.
4. THE STAGE-BY-STAGE POLICY, which was adopted by the PLO in 1974, has been reaffirmed. The “document” calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State in the “1967 area”, without withdrawing claims to the “Pre-1967 area” a provisional stage/accord.
5. TERRORISM IS ENCOURAGED by calling for the “widening the circles of resistance” and for the “release of all prisoners” held by Israel “by all means”. These prisoners are held for terrorism and not for theft and burglary. Precedents determine that the terms “by all means” and “resistance” are code words for terrorism, including the abduction of Israelis as bargaining chips.
6. HOMICIDE BOMBING IS HERALDED by urging support of “those who bore the burden of resistance, in particular the martyrs’ families”. “Martyrs” is a common reference, by Palestinians, to homicide bombers.
7. PLO-HAMAS COOPERATION IS HIGHLIGHTED by calling for the implementation of the March 2005 Cairo Accord, which was the latest in a series of PLO-Hamas understandings, engineered by Abu Mazen since the signing of the Oslo Accord. The understandings state that “Palestinian Unity” and Palestinian national claims—especially the “claim of return”—supersede any accord with Israel.
8. ABU MAZEN is the architect of Palestinian hate-education in schools, mosques and official media—the most authentic reflection of his vision, and a manufacturing line of homicide-bombing. Notwithstanding Abu Mazen’s seemingly moderate appearance, his embrace of the “Prisoners’ Document” has reaffirmed the fundamentals of his own hate-education: idolizing homicide bombers, the “claim of return”, terrorism and the inadmissibility of the Jewish State.
UPDATED (8/24/018): Taki: Not Very Bright
Anti-Semitism, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Neoconservatism, South-Africa, Terrorism, The West
In “From Russia With (Less Than) Love,” I asked—and answered—the question as to why Russia and Israel don’t cooperate more. For one, both nations live adjacent to terrorist entities—the Russians to Chechnya; the Israelis to the Palestinian Authority. Putin must put up with Shamil Basaev (a Chechen terrorist and advocate of an Islamist state in the Northern Caucasus); Israelis have to contend with the new Dalai Lamas of Gaza (Hamas).
And both Israelis and Russians “are hectored by elements in the Bush and Blair administrations and the Europeans about granting statehood to their terrorism-endorsing neighbors. Against insuperable odds, both are expected to trust terrorists and their fan base to stop butchering babies and embrace Jeffersonian democracy and a Bill of Rights.”
Note the consistency of my position: Assailed by savages, Russia and Israel have my sympathies and support on this front.
A year later, Taki, a moldy scribe, with life tenure in various publications, makes a similar point in The American Conservative (TAC). He is smarting over the administration’s double standard: “American policy makers” are “bear baiting” Russia about its mistreatment of Chechen jihadists, whom the administration (as I pointed out) lionizes. Chechens are freedom fighters, but the Palestinians are terrorists? What’s up with that, he wants to know.
This is rich because Taki’s writing is laced with exactly the same illogic:
In fawning, radical-left fashion, he and TAC finesse everything about the savage and dysfunctional Palestinian society, yet evince a loathing of all things Israel. Or, if a little honesty pierces the fog, and they acknowledge the facts on the ground, it is invariably to blame Israel, Ã la the left’s theory of culpability. Apparently, if not for Israel, a veritable economic oasis and a culture of life would flourish where a black hole now threatens to collapse upon itself.
Yes, this is rich because it exposes Taki’s inability to detect the same category of contradiction he rightly accuses the administration of in his and The American Conservative’s oeuvre.
That’s good for a laugh.
UPDATED (8/24/018): Praised by a cult.
Singular indeed. If not wrong, #Taki wrote this a/b my birthplace, RIP, #SouthAfrica: 'the greatest triumph of chatter over machine-gun clatter. life goes on much better than before' (2006). This when I was chronicling #FarmMurders. A dilettante fit for an atrophying cult. https://t.co/Qadz191ZP8
— Ilana Mercer (@IlanaMercer) August 25, 2018
Arab Universalism?
The Boston Globe assures readers that “in the Arab world, Zarqawi tactics bred disgust.”
“If you are fighting foreigners, how come you kill 5,000 [Iraqi goons have killed multitudes more than that] or other innocent civilians and only a few Americans?” asks Bashar al-Akhras, whose “father was killed in the November 2005 suicide bombings of three Amman hotels, claimed by Zarqawi as retribution for Jordan’s support of US policy in the region.”
“His extended family,” Akhras relates, “consists of hard-working Palestinians who live across the Arab world and are bystanders in the war between Al Qaeda and the United States.”
So Akhras disagrees with the Mayor of London’s favorite “progressive” theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi draws a sharp “moral distinction” between suicide bombings against ordinary Londoners (not good) and those against ordinary Israelis (perfectly good). He is not alone among Muslim ulama (scholars).
I’m eager to hear this lad extend his indignation and disgust to the slaughter by terrorists of all civilians—Jordanian, Iraqi, American, and Israeli.
It would be good too if the press avoided sweeping, unsubstantiated and unqualified generalizations.