| |||||||
| |||||||
Showing posts with label Palestinians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinians. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 February 2014
"Palestine" replaces Israel - PA depicts a world without Israel
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Saudi “Palestinian” Negotiator Claims His Family Was in Palestine for 9000 Years
Considering that no such name or term as Palestine existed 9,000 years ago, or for that matter much more recently, and that there has never been a Palestinian ruler or kingdom, that’s quite an accomplishment… for a compulsive liar.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator over the weekend again ruled out the notion of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Speaking at a Munich conference, on a panel with his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni, Erekat said the demand was unacceptable: “When you say ‘accept Israel as a Jewish state’ you are asking me to change my narrative,” he claimed, asserting that his ancestors lived in the region “5,500 years before Joshua Bin-Nun came and burned my hometown Jericho.”
That darn Joshua.
In what conceivable sense was Jericho, Erekat’s hometown?
Erekat was born in Abu Dis, near Jerusalem. I found an interview with another Erekat who was born in Abu Dis, named Hussein Mohamed Erekat. He says that his family actually comes from the Huwaitat region of the northwestern Arabian Peninsula.
Indeed, this article about the dialects and clans of Saudi Arabia confirms the existence of the Erekat (sometimes spelled Areikat or Ariqat) families in Huwaitat, and they are one of seven clans that ended up in Palestine.
Is Saeb a member of this clan? Yes, he is.
This Facebook page of the Erekat family traces the Erekat family history, and this article confirms that the family came from the Huwaitat region, and it also that mentions prominent Erekats – including Saeb.
That article also says that before Huwaitat, their ancestors emigrated from Medina.
All of the Erekats are related. Most of their most prominent members have held positions in Jordan’s government or armed forces, but three PLO diplomats are from the family, including Saeb, the US representative of the PLO Maen Rashid Areikat, and the PLO’s delegate to the Ukraine Khaled Erekat
As the Hamas Interior Minister said, “Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”
The whole “Palestinian” scam is one of the more hilarious frauds in history. And topping that off, you have “Palestinian” reps claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian and that the Caananites were Palestinians. (You can claim one or the other, but not both) When they’re actually just Arabian tribes who invaded the land.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Peace Index Poll: 80.5% of Israeli Jews oppose return of any Palestinian refugees to Israel
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:
The interesting question missing from this poll is if Israelis think that we would ultimately suffer more economically from the consequences of actually making a deal with the Palestinians than from
sanction for failing to make a deal.
The Peace Index – January 2014
(N=608)
28-29.1.2014
1. What is your position on holding peace negotiations between Israel and
the
Palestinian Authority?
Jews
1. Strongly in favor 33.9
2. Somewhat in favor 27.5
3. Somewhat opposed 14.0
4. Strongly opposed 19.4
5. Don’t know / Refuse 5.2
2. Do you believe or not believe that negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority will lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians
in the coming years?
Jews
1. Strongly believe 6.7
2. Somewhat believe 19.6
3. Somewhat don’t believe 21.3
4. Don’t believe at all 50.0
5. Don’t know / Refuse 2.3
3. In your opinion, to what extent is it important or not important that, in
a framework agreement with the Palestinians, they recognize Israel as the
state of the Jewish people?
Jews
1. Very important 62.6
2. Moderately important 14.4
3. Not so important 7.6
4. Not important at all 13.2
5. Don’t know/ Refuse 2.2
4. (only for those who answered “Very important” or “Moderately important”)
Why, in your opinion, is it important that the Palestinians recognize Israel
as the
state of the Jewish people; is it mainly because:
Jews
1. Such recognition entails recognizing the basic principle of Zionism
40.8
2. Such recognition is a fair recompense for Israel recognizing the
Palestinian state as the state of the Palestinian people 19.4
3. Such recognition would enable Israel to deal in the future with demands
to change Israel into a state of all its citizens 28.8
4. All to the same extent 4.3
5. None of those; something else 3.7
6. Don’t know/ Refuse 3.1
5. Cabinet ministers and security officials have been talking a lot about
anti- Israeli incitement in Palestinian education and propaganda. Some claim
there is no point in continuing the peace talks because such incitement
proves that the Palestinians are not at all interested in reaching an
agreement. However, some claim that there is a reasonable chance that if
there is incitement, it will abate and perhaps stop completely after an
agreement is reached that is acceptable to the Palestinians. With which of
these two claims do you agree more?
Jews
1. With the first claim—that there is no point in continuing the talks
because the incitement proves that the Palestinians do not want peace
54.0
2. With the second claim—that it can be reasonably assumed that if an
agreement is reached that is also acceptable to the Palestinians, the
incitement will abate or even stop 40.8
3. Don’t know/ Refuse 5.2
6. Do you support or not support the proposal by Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman that, in an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel would annex
the large settlement blocs while the Triangle and Arab-populated part s of
the Galilee would be annexed to the Palestinian state?
Jews
1. Strongly support 18.7
2. Moderately support 24.4
3. Don’t support very much 19.0
4. Don’t support at all 32.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse 5.8
7.What, in your opinion, are the chances that Lieberman’s proposal would be
accepted by the Palestinian Authority?
Jews
1. Very high chances 1.9
2. Moderately high chances 5.4
3. Moderately low chance 25.4
4. Very low chances 61.0
5. Don’t know / Refuse 6.3
8. And what are the chances that most of the Israeli Arabs would accept
Lieberman’s proposal?
Jews
1. Very high chances 1.3
2. Moderately high chances 7.4
3. Moderately low chances 23.0
4. Very low chances 62.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse 6.2
9. And if the Americans soon present a framework agreement that is an
outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, will or will this not
affect the position of Netanyahu and his government in the context of the
negotiations with the Palestinians?
Jews
1. It will not have a significant effect because the Israeli government
will always uphold the principles that are important to it, and it makes no
difference what the Americans say 23.8
2. It will have a significant effect because Netanyahu cannot allow himself
to ignore the U.S. position or world public opinion by disregarding such an
agreement 66.9
3. Don’t know / Refuse 9.2
10. If parties currently in the government, such as Bayit Yehudi or Yisrael
Beiteinu, threaten to bolt the government if Netanyahu accepts the framework
agreement that the Americans present, what are the chances that he will
allow them to leave and work for a new government with other parties, such
as Labor and the haredi parties, that currently are in the opposition?
Jews
1. Very low chances 19.5
2. Moderately low chances 23.0
3. Moderately high chance 31.1
4. Very high chances 17.4
5. Don’t know / Refuse 9.0
11. Recently there have been more and more calls in Europe and the United
States to impose economic and other sanctions on Israel and force it to curb
the building in the territories and moderate its positions on the terms of a
peace agreement with the Palestinians. What, in your opinion, are the
chances that this trend will intensify and harsh sanctions will be imposed
on Israel, including a full boycott of the export of products from Israel?
Jews
1. High chances 21.2
2. Moderately high chances 28.7
3. Moderately low chances 29.9
4. Very low chances 17.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse 3.0
12. If such harsh sanctions were to be imposed on Israel by Europe and the
United States, to what extent, in your opinion, would Israel be able or
unable to cope with them successfully and maintain the same positions on the
settlements
and the negotiations?
Jews
1. I’m sure it will not be able 16.0
2. I think it will not be able 30.2
3. I think it will be able 27.5
4. I’m sure it will be able 21.7
5. Don’t know / Refuse 4.6
13. In return for a final peace agreement, in your opinion should or should
not Israel agree to the return of a limited number of Palestinian refugees
to Israel?
Jews
1. I’m sure it should 2.5
2. I think it should 13.7
3. I think it should not 17.9
4. I’m sure it should not 62.6
5. Don’t know / Refuse 3.4
14. In return for a final peace agreement would you support or oppose Israel
acknowledging its partial responsibility for the suffering that was caused
to the
Palestinians, for example, in creating the (abovementioned) refugee problem
Jews
1. I’m sure I would not agree 51.9
2. I think I would not agree 22.2
3. I think I would agree 16.2
4. I’m sure I would agree 7.1
5. Don’t know / Refuse 2.7
15. In a few more months President Peres will end his tenure and elections
will be held for a new president of the state of Israel. Would you prefer
that the new president come from the political world, the world of science
and the humanities, or the world of economics and business?
Jews
1. From the world of economics and business 14.5
2. From the world of science and the humanities 39.8
3. From the political world 29.8
4. It does not matter 9.1
5. Other 1.6
6. Don’t know / Refuse 5.1
16. Whom would you prefer to elect the president?
Jews
1. As currently practiced, the members of the Knesset 16.1
2. A public council that would be specially formed for this purpose of
people with a recognized public status in various fields 19.6
3. The general public 58.6
4. Other 1.5
5. Don’t know / Refuse 4.2
------
The Peace Index: January 2014
Date Published: 04/02/2014
Survey dates: 27/01/2014 - 28/01/2014
The impact of an American framework agreement: Amid reports that the Americans will soon present a “Kerry outline,” that is, a framework agreement for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, we looked into whether the Israeli public thinks such an outline will or will not affect the stance of Netanyahu and his government in the negotiations with the Palestinians. The findings reveal that a large majority of the Jewish sample (67%) foresees a substantial impact, since they do not believe Netanyahu can allow himself to ignore the U.S. stance and worldwide opinion. The gaps on this question between the political camps—the right, the center, and the left—turned out to be small.
The impact on the coalition of accepting the framework agreement: The responses to this question show that the Jewish public is divided on whether Netanyahu will work to form a new government with parties such as Labor and the haredi factions if the Bayit Yehudi and Yisrael Beiteinu parties will threaten to bolt the coalition if Netanyahu accepts the framework agreement. Some 48.5% see the chances that he will try to form a new government as high, while 42.5% view them as low. Those interviewees who located themselves on the right side of the spectrum are more or less split regarding the chances of forming a government with other parties, while in the center and on the left the majority sees high chances that this will happen.
The chances of stepped-up sanctions on Israel: The Jewish public is also more or less divided regarding the chances that various elements in Europe and the United States will step up the demand for economic and other sanctions on Israel, leading to a comprehensive boycott of Israeli exports aimed at forcing Israel to curb construction in the territories and moderate its positions in the peace talks with the Palestinians. Fifty percent see the chances of such measures as high while 47% regard them as small. When it comes to assessing this risk, the disparities between the political camps are very large: on the right, 42% see the chances of boosted sanctions as high; in the center that figure comes to 52%; while on the left 71% see high chances of such a development.
Israel’s resilience: Here too, on the question of whether Israel will or will not be capable of coping successfully with major sanctions if imposed, and whether it will or will not alter its positions on settlements and the talks as a result, the map of responses is not clear-cut. Of the Jewish sample, 49% think Israel could manage with the situation; 46% are sure or think it could not. Not surprisingly, here too there are large disparities by political camp: only a minority of those on the right (32%) think Israel would have trouble withstanding the pressure without revising its positions, compared to 56% of those placing themselves in the center and 67% of those who locate themselves on the left.
In return for a peace settlement, could Israel agree to the return of a certain number of Palestinian refugees? The survey shows widespread opposition in the Jewish public (80.5%) to the idea that, in return for a permanent peace settlement, Israel could agree to the return of even a limited number of Palestinian refugees.
Taking responsibility for Palestinian suffering: Likewise, 74% of the Jewish respondents did not agree that, in return for permanent peace, Israel could acknowledge even partial responsibility for the suffering that was caused to the Palestinians—for example, in creating the refugee problem.
Recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people: An overwhelming majority (77%) of the Jewish sample responded that it is important to them that as part of the settlement, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Out of these respondents, 41% say this is important because it entails recognition of the basic principle of Zionism; 29% consider such recognition as important because it will enable countering future demands to make Israel a state of all its citizens; while 19% view such recognition as a fair recompense for Israel’s recognition of the Palestinian state as the state of the Palestinian people. A segmentation of the responses by political camp shows that all along the political spectrum a majority ascribes importance to Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, but in different majorities: 63% of those who situate themselves on the left, 84% in the center, and 77% on the right. Particularly interesting is the discrepancy in reasons for favoring such recognition. Whereas those placing themselves on the left primarily view such recognition as a fair recompense for recognition of a Palestinian state, in the center and on the right the main consideration is that such Palestinian recognition means recognizing the basic principle of Zionism.
The importance of incitement in Palestinian educational materials: We asked: “Cabinet ministers and security officials have been talking a lot about anti-Israeli incitement in Palestinian education and propaganda. Some claim there is no point in continuing the peace talks because such incitement proves that the Palestinians are not at all interested in reaching an agreement. However, some claim that there is a reasonable chance that if there is incitement, it will abate and perhaps stop completely after an agreement is reached that is acceptable to the Palestinians. With which of these two claims do you agree more?” A majority of the Jewish interviewees (54%) agreed more with the first claim, only 41% with the second. On this question the gaps between the political camps are huge: on the right, 77% agree with the first claim, compared to 42% in the center and only 21% on the left.
Territorial swaps: The Jewish sample is divided in its reactions to the proposal of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that, in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians, the large settlement blocs would be annexed to Israel while the Triangle and Arab-populated parts of the Galilee would be annexed to the Palestinian state. Forty-three percent support this proposal while a (small) majority of 51% opposes it. The rate of opponents on the right stands at 52.5%, in the center at 45.5%, while reaching 67% on the left. In any case, it appears that both supporters and opponents of the proposal are aware that it is not feasible, with the large majority (86% and 85%, respectively) seeing small chances that it would be accepted by the Palestinians or the Israeli Arabs.
From the political-security issue we moved on to a domestic Israeli issue: the upcoming election for the presidency of the country. How would the public want the president to be elected, and from which world would they prefer that he come?
How should the president be elected? Not surprisingly, in light of the low level of trust in the political institutions, a clear majority (59%) of the Jewish interviewees expressed a preference that the president be elected by the general public, 20% prefer that he be elected by a specially constituted public council of people with a recognized public status in various fields, and only 16% favor the present system where the president is elected by the Knesset. In all the political camps the majority or the highest rate prefers election by the general public, but in different proportions: 62% of the right, 59% of the center, and 49% of the left.
Which world should the president come from? Out of three worlds, 40% of the Jewish interviewees said they preferred that the elected president come from the world of science and the humanities, 30% from the political world, and only 14.5% prefer that the president come from the economics and business domain. This question, too, turned up substantial gaps between the political camps. On the right, the rate who prefer that the president come from the world of science and the humanities (33.5%) is the same as the rate who prefer that he come from the political world (35%); in the center, and all the more so on the left, there is a clear preference for the world of science and the humanities over the political world (respectively, in the center, 46%-30%; on the left, 60%-19%).
Negotiations index: Jewish sample—43.8
Graph of the month: What, in your opinion, are the chances that harsh sanctions will be imposed on Israel including a comprehensive boycott of its exports, and what are the chances that Israel will be able to withstand such sanctions without changing its policy? (%, high chances, by political camp)
The Peace Index is a project of the Evens Program for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute. This month's survey was conducted by telephone on January 28-29, 2014, by the Midgam Research Institute. The survey included 609 respondents, who constitute a representative national sample of the adult Jewish population aged 18 and over. For technical reasons, the data for the Israeli Arab sample will not be published this month. The maximum measurement error for the entire sample is 4.5% at a confidence level of 95%. Statistical processing was done by Ms. Yasmin Alkalay.
source
Chief Palestinian negotiator claims the Palestinians cannot accept Israel as the Jewish State.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed at the Munich Security Conference on Jan. 31 that the Palestinians cannot accept Israel as the Jewish state because they lived in the region long before the Jews.
In the context of the current debate over the Jordan Valley, Erekat claimed that his ancestors were the real descendants of the Canaanites and lived in the area for “5,500 years before Joshua Bin-Nun.” (1)
In effect, Erekat was promoting the well-known Palestinian narrative that they are the native population, while the Jews are latecomers who only arrived in the last hundred years. Since the Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine occurred only in 634CE, the credibility of this Palestinian claim is questionable, to say the least.
At the same time, there is documented proof of a Jewish presence in the land dating back millennia. In Jericho itself, the Shalom al Yisrael (Peace unto Israel) synagogue with its magnificent mosaic was discovered in the 1930s and dates back to the Byzantine period. Not far away is the Wadi Kelt synagogue which dates back to 75 BCE, from the time of the Hasmonean monarchy, making it the oldest synagogue to have been discovered. (2)
According to Moshe Gil’s A History of Palestine 634-1099 published by Cambridge University Press, “The Jewish population in Palestine residing in the country at the time of the Muslim conquest consisted of the direct descendants of the generations of Jews who had lived there since the days of Joshua bin Nun, in other words, for some 2,000 years.” (3) In the fifth century, “the Jews and the Samaritans virtually governed the land.” (4)
Salo Wittmayer Baron, in A Social and Religious History of the Jews published by Columbia University Press, recounts how the Caliph ‘Umar I embarked on a career of world conquest in 634 in the first decade after Mohammed’s death. “‘Umar expelled the Jews of Khaibar, the largest and most intact non-Muslim group still remaining in northern Arabia.” According to Al-Bukhari, the most famous and authoritative compiler of Muslim traditions known as hadith, ‘Umar deported Khaibar Jews to Jericho(5)
There is another tradition that most of the Jews of Khaybar settled in Jericho and in the surrounding area. “The Jews of Khaybar apparently spread out from Jericho along the Jordan Valley, reaching the Sanur Valley in northern Samaria.”(6)
Thus, the Jewish presence in the land can be documented as dating back for millennia, while the politically-motivated claims made up by Palestinian leaders in an attempt to refute the long-standing history of the Jews in the region lack any such proof.
Notes
1. Daniel Siryoti and Shlomo Cesana, “Chief Palestinian Negotiator: We Were Here before the Jews,” Israel Hayom, Feb. 2, 2014, http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=15185. Erekat’s own family probably came from southern Jordan near the Saudi border, see http://alahaywat.blogspot.ca/2013/12/blog-post_2522.html
3. Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 2.
4. Ibid., p. 3.
5. Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), pp. 86-87.
6. “Khaybar,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 12, http://archive.org/stream/KhaosOdenslandArchiveDocstheMisanthropicMisogynist/EncyclopaediaJudaicaV.12kat-lie_djvu.txt
- See more at: http://jcpa.org/erekat-wrong-jewish-presence-land-dates-back-millennia/#sthash.GnLcYHv9.dpufsource
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Stab in Israel's back: Kerry promises Palestinians an IDF-free state, on assurances of course. Bit like the ones prior to the Gaza handover
At Davos conference, US Secretary of State says 'West Bank occupation' will end when Israel is assured new state is not launchpad for terror
(What like the assurances prior to Gaza?)
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday told an annual conference of international business and political leaders that a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would include the complete removal of Israeli troops from Palestinian territory.
"Palestinians need to know that at the end of the day their territory will be free of Israeli troops – that occupation ends," Kerry said in a speech at the global economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. But, he added, that day would not come until Israel was certain that the territory from which they withdrew would not be used as a launch pad for attacks on its citizens.
"The Israelis rightfully will not withdraw until they know the West Bank will not become another Gaza," the secretary of state clarified.
There had been some tensions between Israel and the US over the security plans included in the current US-driven negotiations. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, a former head of the IDF, caused controversy earlier this month when he dismissed Kerry as "obsessive" and his security provisions as "not worth the paper they're written on."
Kerry peppered his speech with assurances that Israel's security was paramount to the success of the negotiations. "Israel has to be strong to make peace, but we also believe that peace will make Israel stronger."
And he reiterated: "There cannot be peace unless Israeli security needs are met."
The secretary of state expressed great hope that the current round of negotiations would bear long sought-after fruits, but warned both parties of the high costs of peace and the high risks of failing in this endeavor.
Now or never
The Palestinians, he said, must understand that the current round of talks could be their last chance at a negotiated resolution for the foreseeable future."If (the Palestinians) fail to achieve statehood now, there is no guarantee they will any time soon." He added: "If talks fail, Palestinians will be no closer to being masters of their own fate, and no closer to resolving their refugee crisis."
After delivering those stern warnings, Kerry pivoted to positive arguments for peace: "Imagine this time next year if Palestinian businessman and government leaders from the state of Palestine are able to pitch the world's largest investors (at Davos)."
Kerry reassured the Israeli public as well of the benefits of peace: "For Israel, the benefits of peace are enormous and perhaps even more significant."
He expressed hope that the 20 Arab states which currently refuse to recognize and trade with Israel will change their policy once they see concrete steps made towards a final-status agreement.
He told both sides of the conflict: "It is past time that the people of this region are known for what they create, not the conflict they perpetuate."
Kerry also set out to assuage fears of an American withdrawal from involvement in the Middle East.
He concluded with a wide assurance to all states in the region that, despite Obama's public pivot to Asia, the United States was not considering considering a change in its hands-on approach to the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
"President Obama and his administration will remain engaged in the long-run. We dare not – and I assure you – we will not miss this moment," he said.
Earlier on Friday Kerry met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for about 90 minutes on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to push a framework for a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Ynet news
Sunday, 22 December 2013
Palestinian Leader Farouq Qaddoumi: We Supported The Nazis In WWII
In an interview with Russia Today TV on December 7, 2013, Farouq Qaddoumi,
former PLO political bureau head, said: "I don't think it would be wrong to
say that we were enthusiastic supporters of Germany" in World War II.
Following are excerpts from the interview:
Interviewer: Were you sympathetic with Nazi Germany in WWII?
Farouq Qaddoumi: I don't think it would be wrong to say that we were enthusiastic supporters of Germany.
Interviewer: You supported Hitler and his people.
Farouq Qaddoumi: Germany, yes. This was common among the Palestinians, especially since our enemy was Zionism, and we saw that Zionism was hostile to Germany, and vice versa.
Interviewer: There was a Nazi radio station in Arabic at the time, right?
Farouq Qaddoumi: I recall something like that.
MEMRI
----------
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
Increased Coordination Between Israel and the Palestinians for Celebration of Christmas Season
IDF representatives conducted meetings with representatives from the Bethlehem Municipality, the Palestinians Security Forces, international organizations and religious representatives in order to coordinate preparations for the upcoming Christmas holiday season.
During the course of the season, which begins tomorrow, December 19th, 2013, and concludes on January 20th, 2014, the IDF and COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories) will take measures in order to facilitate Christmas celebrations among the Christian Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
During the course of the holidays, the presence of security personnel will be increased at thecrossings in the Bethlehem area in order to facilitate efficient access of pilgrims and tourists to and from the city.
During the holiday season the IDF will facilitate the visit of an unlimited number of Christian Palestinians from Judea and Samaria to Israel. Also, at the request of the Palestinian Authority, Israel will authorize 200 special holiday permits for Palestinians who reside abroad, to visit Judea and Samaria. Approximately 500 Palestinian Christians from Gaza, under the age of 16 and above 35, will be eligible to visit Israel and Judea and Samaria in order to enjoy and participate in the holiday festivities.
Lt. Col. Eyal Zeevi, Head of Bethlehem District Coordination Office: “During the holiday season Israel is making a significant effort to safeguard freedom of religion in the area, facilitate participation in religious ceremonies and ensure that Christians in the region enjoy the holiday spirit“.
Background Information
During the past year nine new hotels have been built in Bethlehem, this is in addition to 44 existing hotels in the city.
During the Christmas season over 300,000 visitors are expected to visit Bethlehem and the hotels are expected to be at full occupancy.
A Slap in the Face for Anti-Israel BDS Movement
Abbas's stance against the BDS campaign should serve as a wake up call to all its supporters, especially those who are not Palestinians, that negative campaigns only serve to promote hatred and extremism in the region.
Many Palestinians seem to share Abbas's view. That is why many Palestinians continue to do business with Israelis on a daily basis and continue to hold joint conferences in Israel and different parts of the world.
 |
| US President Barack Obama and PA President Mahmoud Abbas meet at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. In a press conference, Abbas denounced the BDS campaign against Israel. (Image Source: GCIS) |
The international campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] against Israel received a slap in the face last week from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
As BDS supporters continue to campaign against Israel around the world, Abbas, asked about his position regarding the BDS campaign at a press conference in Johannesburg, where he was attending Nelson Mandela's funeral, stated that he does not support the boycott of Israel.
It is ironic that while Abbas is saying no to a boycott of Israel, the American Studies Association, an association of U.S. professors with almost 5,000 members, voted to endorse an academic boycott of Israeli colleagues and universities.
The U.S. professors obviously do not care about what the Palestinian Authority president has to say about the boycott of Israel. The professors, like BDS supporters, apparently believe that Abbas is a "traitor" because he is conducting peace talks with Israel.
Abbas's attack on the BDS movement is a serious embarrassment for the anti-Israel activists, many of whom are not Palestinians.
The statements have enraged BDS activists worldwide, with some calling into question Abbas's right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians.
Prominent Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab noted that Abbas's statement in Johannesburg "naturally has angered many Palestinian and international supporters of the BDS movement."
Kuttab wrote that Abbas's statement "reflects the absence of any clear strategy from the Palestinian political leadership except for negotiations. It is unclear whether the reason behind the Palestinian leader's public attack at the BDS movement is a result of trying to protect the Palestinian elite or not wanting to anger the Israelis and their US allies."
Abbas did, however, call on people around the world to boycott products of settlements. "No, we do not support the boycott of Israel," Abbas said. "But we ask everyone to boycott the products of settlements because the settlements are in our territories. It is illegal."
Abbas's statements conflict "with the Palestinian national consensus that has strongly supported BDS against Israel since 2005," Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of BDS, told Electronic Intifada.
"There is no Palestinian political party, trade union, NGO [non-governmental organization] network or mass organization that does not strongly support BDS," Omar Barghouti continued. "Any Palestinian official who lacks a democratic mandate and any real public support, therefore, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people."
Salim Vally, spokesman for the Palestine Solidarity Committee in South Africa, told The Electronic Intifada that Abbas's comments were "shocking" and represented an "attack on the global solidarity movement."
The claim that Abbas does not represent the Palestinian "consensus" regarding a boycott of Israel is inaccurate. In fact, many Palestinians seem to share Abbas's view, which supports a boycott only of settlement products.
That is why many Palestinians continue to do business with Israelis on a daily business. That is also why, despite the BDS campaign, Palestinians and Israelis continue to hold joint seminars and conferences in Israel and different parts of the world.
In wake of Abbas's statements, the BDS movement should reconsider its strategy. Calls for boycotting any party do not contribute to the cause of peace. Abbas's stance against the BDS should also serve as a wake-up call to its supporters, especially those who are not Palestinians, that negative campaigns only serve to promote hatred and extremism in the region.
-------------------------------------
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Harriet Sherwood adaciously suggests that Palestinians have abandoned terror
All Harriet needs for Christmas is a new brain.
One of the many articles published in early November by the Guardian about the Swiss report on the death of Yasser Arafat concluding that the late Palestinian leader was likely poisoned – a theory contradicted by a subsequent French report - was penned by Harriet Sherwood, and titled ‘Arafat polonium find likely to be another hurdle for peace talks‘.
Sherwood’s story strangely argued that the Swiss findings were “likely to worsen the already corrosive atmosphere of the faltering peace negotiations and fuel popular demands that the Palestinian leadership walk out”, and, we noticed after reviewing the article again, this even more curious conclusion about Palestinians.
Arafat was a man who divided the world: revered by Palestinians and their supporters, reviled by Israel and its allies. Nine years after his death, a portrait of him still hangs in most Palestinian homes. Nonetheless, the Palestinian people have inevitably moved on. Acts of violence, espoused by Arafat, are rare in the West Bank, and rocket fire from Gaza has dropped; instead, the Palestinian leadership has invested its hopes in diplomacy and negotiations.
The broad suggestion that Palestinians have largely abandoned Arafat’s ‘strategy’ of terrorism represents an almost staggering distortion based on empirical data on the quantity of terror attackssince his death. (In 2005 alone, 2,990 Palestinian terror attacks were recorded.) Further, though such attacks have decreased overall in comparison to the height of the 2nd Intifada, this reduction is largely attributed to the construction of Israel’s security fence and more effective counter-terror measures, not changing Palestinian attitudes towards terror.
Additionally, Sherwood’s claim that “acts of violence…are rare in the West Bank” is also simply not true. As BBC Watch’s Hadar Sela recently reported, “statistics provided by the ISA [Israel Security Agency] for the months July to November 2013 shows that the number of terror attacks taking place in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and Jerusalem since the renewal of direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO on July 29th has more than doubled”.
Terror incidents since July, 2013.
Sherwood’s additional claim that “rocket fire from Gaza has dropped” is also extremely misleading. As the graph below on rocket attacks from Gaza demonstrates, rocket attacks from Gaza increaseddramatically since Arafat’s death in 2004 (and Hamas’s control of the Strip in 2006). While rocket attacks did decrease following the Gaza war (Cast Lead) in 2008-09, they increased again each year after the conflict until Israel launched an eight-day war in November 2012 (Pillar of Defense).
Beyond the statistical evidence contradicting Sherwood’s specific claims, it’s hard to understand how anyone covering the region as long as she has could possibly come to the conclusion that Palestinians have in any way abandoned terrorism. In addition to the ubiquitous examples of the Palestinian glorification of terrorists, a comprehensive report on Arab public opinion by Pew Global in September demonstrated that “support for suicide bombing and other violence aimed at civilian targets is most widespread in the Palestinian territories“. A staggering 62% of [Palestinian] Muslims, per this poll, believe that such attacks “are often or sometimes justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies”.
Though we’ve, on occasion, noted reports by Sherwood which suggest a modest amount of improvement in her coverage of the region, the amount of disinformation conveyed in those two sentences we cited (on Palestinian attitudes towards terror) again reminds us that her pro-Palestinian sympathies will trump a sincere commitment to accuracy almost every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)