[Published 13 December 2010]
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas openly espouses Jew-hating qualities under the three hats he currently wears.
1. As President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) - Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.
2. As Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - Abbas is sworn to enforce the provisions of its Charter which prescribes:
“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."
3. As Chairman of Fatah - the largest faction in the PLO - Abbas presided over a meeting of its Revolutionary Council on 27 November which resolved:
“The Council stresses the revolutionary rejection of the so-called ‘Jewish state’ and any formula [that] can be considered in future contribution to achieving this end, and renew this rejection of any attempt by a racist state based on religion, in accordance with international law and human rights charters…”
Abbas has gone even further and persuaded Brazil to out itself as a Jew-hating State by calling for the recognition of a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan, Egypt and Israel “on 1967 borders”.
There were no “1967 borders“ - as Brazil must surely know - only 1949 demarcation lines that had been established between
1. Israel and Egypt on 24 January 1949 and
2. Israel and Transjordan (now called Jordan) on 3 April 1949
- to designate the armistice lines where hostilities had ceased between the nascent State of Israel and the six Arab armies that had invaded it in May 1948.
Brazil’s recognition signifies that 500000 Jews presently living on the Arab side of those demarcation lines in the areas called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem - will either have to voluntarily leave or be forcibly removed from their homes and businesses.
Brazil’s decision - which smacks of the infamous Nazi “Judenrein” policy that called for the mass deportation of Jews from their homes and businesses before and during World War 11 - is in breach of existing international law specifically:
1. Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine - which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in precisely the area that Brazil now wants to see cleared of Jews - which Brazil itself agreed to when the Mandate was unanimously approved by the League of Nations in 1922
2. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - which reserved the rights of Jewish settlement granted by the Mandate - which had also been endorsed by Brazil when the UN Charter came into being.
Argentina has been quick to follow Brazil’s headlong rush into identifying itself as a fellow Jew-hating state. Expectations are that they will be soon joined by Uruguay and some other South American countries.
Both Argentina and Uruguay were also - like Brazil - consenting signatories to the Mandate and Article 80.
One cannot stop people or States being Jew-haters but on the other hand they need to be identified and exposed.
Racism and vilification of this kind have no place in humankind.
In the case of those States which choose to follow Brazil and Argentina - one would hope to see their citizens protesting loudly at such a decision. Standing by and doing nothing will only stigmatize the citizens of those States as Jew-haters.
Neither Brazil nor Argentina have made any call on the PA to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home in return for the recognition they have now extended to the PA.
Brazil and Uruguay supported the creation of a Jewish State proposed by the UN in 1947. Argentina abstained.
All three countries became places of refuge for fleeing Nazis at the conclusion of World War 11. Their shadowy past seems to be coming back to haunt them.
Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay never recognized the attempted annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Transjordan in 1950.
Israel’s position on the status of these areas was explained by Israel’s then Foreign Affairs Minister - Moshe Sharett - in Israel‘s Parliament on 3 May 1950 as follows:
“The Government Spokesman issued the following statement, in the Government’s name: “The decision to annex the Arab areas west of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement, however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we are concerned.”
This position holds true today - with the exception that the areas cannot be described as “Arab areas” since they are now inhabited by 500000 Jews as well. Many of the Jews returning to live there after 1967 had been forced to leave their homes and businesses following Jordan’s conquest of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948.
Announcements by countries such as Brazil and Argentina signifying their assent to the wholesale deportation of this Jewish population once again sends a dangerous message of support to the 21 Jew-hating States comprised in the Arab League - which have unanimously endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan in 2002 calling for precisely such an outcome.
This call should be contrasted with the view expressed by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004:
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
Brazil and Argentina - and any other States that are attracted to follow them - have some serious explaining to do to justify their decision in endorsing an outcome in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that requires both areas to be completely cleared of Jews.