Palestine - Jimmy Carter Caught In Court Disaster

[Published 3 February 2011]


Former US president Jimmy Carter faces the prospect of paying damages exceeding five million dollars if he is unsuccessful in defending legal proceedings against himself and his publisher Simon & Schuster Inc resulting from the publication of Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - which had an initial print run of 300,000 copies.

A class action instituted by five disgruntled readers of Carter’s controversial book was commenced this week in the United States District Court. The law suit appears set to attract more readers of the book to add their names to the litigation. The complainants have requested a jury to hear the case.

The Complainants are very clear in declaring what the case is - and is not - about:

“Plaintiffs wish to be clear about what this lawsuit is not about. It is not in any way an attempt to challenge Defendant JIMMY CARTER’S right to write a book, or Defendant SIMON & SCHUSTER’S right to publish a book which serves as a forum for Carter to put forward his virulently ant-Israeli bias or any other agenda he or his financial backers wish to put forward. Nor do Plaintiffs challenge his right to use falsehood, misrepresentations and omissions, misleading statements, or outright lies, all of which characterize this book, to further his agenda. Indeed, Plaintiffs fully recognize that, such an agenda from Defendant JIMMY CARTER should come as no surprise, given his well known bias against Israel and the interests of Israel’s sworn enemies who have given millions of dollars to support the Carter Center and Defendant JIMMY CARTER’S work.

Rather, Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge Defendants’ actions in deceiving the public by promoting and selling this Book as a factually accurate account in all regards of the events its purports to depict, rather than truthfully and accurately promoting and selling it as the anti-Israel screed that it is, intentionally presenting untrue and inaccurate accounts of historically recorded events, as witnesses to and participants in such events pointedly have come forward to declare. This lawsuit challenges the Defendants actions in attempting to capitalize on Carter’s status as a former President of the United States to mislead unsuspecting members of the reading public who thought they could trust their former President to tell the truth”

Factual Accuracy Under Legal Challenge

The Complainants allege several representations were made by Carter as to the accuracy of the book including:

1. the “Larry King Live” program on CNN on December 8, 2006, when Carter declared:

“Everything in the book, I might say, is completely accurate.”

2. the same day, December 8, 2006, when Carter wrote in the Los Angeles Times that:

“I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately…"

3. an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien on December 13, 2006 when Carter insisted:

“I know what I’m talking about and the book is completely accurate.”

A number of factual inaccuracies in Carter’s book are specified in the Complaint including claims that:

1. U.N. Security Resolution 242 - enacted on November 22, 1967, - requires Israel to completely withdraw from all territories acquired in the 1967 war.
2. Israel’s eastern border with the Palestinian Territories has been established and internationally recognized.
3. a map represented as “the Palestinian interpretation of Clinton’s 2000 proposal” in December 2000 is in fact a map presented by Israel during the Camp David Summit in July 2000
4. The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians.
5. The security barrier has been erected entirely within Palestinian territory and is at least three and a half times longer than Israel’s internationally recognized border
6. Hamas offered to exchange the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among some 8,500 Palestinians in Israeli prisons

The Complaint foreshadows many more inaccuracies will be presented at the hearing.

A former close aide and adviser to Carter - Professor Kenneth Stein - has been very outspoken in his criticism of the book:

” It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter’s credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking.”

Professor Alan Dershowitz has been as equally scathing claiming:

“Mr. Carter’s book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law, it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court. Mr. Carter too is guilty of misleading the court of public opinion. A mere listing of all of Mr. Carter’s mistakes and omissions would fill a volume the size of his book.”

The Complainants do not appear to base their claim on any omissions of fact from the book - relying only on inaccuracies in the facts allegedly appearing in the book.

Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for Simon & Schuster, issued a statement calling the action:

“frivolous [and] without merit”

Rothberg said that the suit:

“is a transparent attempt by the plaintiffs, despite their contentions, to punish the author, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and world-renowned statesman, and his publisher, for writing and publishing a book with which the plaintiffs simply disagree, It is a chilling attack on free speech that we intend to defend vigorously.”

Rothberg apparently has failed to grasp that the case is not about free speech - but rather that it is about representing a work as factually accurate and non-fiction when it is not.

The Complainants allege:

“SIMON & SCHUSTER, Inc. steadfastly has refused to make any corrections of such false, misleading, and deceptive provisions in the book and both Defendants continue unabashedly to promote the sale of this deceptive product as a work of non-fiction filled only with a truthful account all matters depicted in it, denying all claims by those well respected officials that Carter has fabricated things in the book which he claims to be true.”

Those interested in ensuring the unquestionable accuracy of facts published in relation to the Jewish-Arab conflict - indeed any conflict - will certainly watch the progress of this case with great interest.

Palestine - Remembering The Past To Protect The Future

A telephone poll of a representative sample of 506 Israeli Jews age 15-18 carried out between 16-18 January 2011 by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute (headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz) for the Committee of Gush Katif Residents - revealed an appalling lack of knowledge by these teenagers concerning Israel’s evacuation and disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Hopefully this ignorance can be countered with a visit to the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem.

It was my pleasure during a recent visit to Israel to have the privilege of visiting this little known but very important new museum established in 2008 and centrally located at 5 Shaarei Tzedek St Jerusalem just three minutes walk from the Machane Yehuda Market.

The unpretentious and modest exterior of the old building belies the love and dedication of the small band of volunteers who have taken up the challenge to make sure that the ignorance of those 15-18 year olds is addressed.

The Museum explains the rationale for its creation as follows:

“The Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem is the only museum in the world that unfolds the story of Jewish settlement in the Gaza strip, from the days of the Hasmoneans till the uprooting of Jews during the “disengagement plan” 2005, along with four other Jewish communities in North Shomron.

The years when Jews built settlements in Gaza strip were beautiful. The museum holds a collection of movies and books that deal with this wonderful era, saluting these communities . In the museum the visitor will also find the famous Menorah of Netsarim, which was carried by the settlers to the Kotel (Western Wall) and that became a symbol of the struggle.

The story of this struggle against the disengagement plan is outlined by authentic artifacts, paintings, sculptures, photographs and videos.”

The Museum contains:

1. A reference library - housing books about Jewish settlement in Gush Katif and the Disengagement Plan
2. An entry hall - presenting the day to day life of Gush Katif and a historical timeline tracing the Jewish presence in the Gaza region for over 3000 years including Kfar Darom between 1948 -1967
3. A screening room - depicting films recording the struggle against evacuation
4. The Orange Wall - recalling a year and a half of civil struggle to prevent the evacuation
5. A memorial room - remembering the fallen residents killed in terrorist attacks and military battles.
6. The Black Room - displaying the confrontation between the residents and the Israel Defence Forces and Israeli police officers.

The Museum is open Sunday - Thursday 10.00 - 18.00 and Fridays 9.00 - 13.00 and relies on visitors to supplement its meager finances. The phone number for inquiries is 02- 625 5456. Admission is free but donations and purchase of souvenirs is welcomed

The Museum should be an obligatory visit for

1. those 15-18 year old Israeli youth - indeed all school children at least once during their schooling bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah tours
2. All Israel study missions

As the disastrous effect of such evacuation become increasingly clearer with each passing day, I hope the Museum will extend its treasure trove of information with an additional section covering

1. The havoc and destruction subsequently wrought on the 8000 men women and children who were forced to leave
2. The political chaos that has descended on Gaza since 2005
3. The lessons that must be learned before any further unilateral withdrawals are contemplated by Israel

The Israeli Government was at pains to describe the events of 2005 as

1. an “evacuation” not “expulsion”
2. a “disengagement” not the ceding of Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Gush Katif conferred on the Jews by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and preserved in article 80 of the United Nations Charter

“Evacuate” is defined in the Collins English Dictionary as:

“to withdraw or cause to withdraw from (a place of danger) to a place of greater safety”

The corollary is that when the danger is removed there can be a return to the place where the removal occurred.

The same dictionary defines “disengage” as:

“To withdraw (forces) from close action”

The corollary is that when the dangers resulting from such close action no longer exist then the disengagement can be reversed.

Jews have had a presence in Gaza at many times over the last 3000 years. It is safe to say they will enjoy a similar privilege sometime in the future. Meanwhile the Gush Katif Museum will keep the memory and the hopes alive.

Make it a “must see” on your next visit to Israel.

Palestine - Escaping Egypt's Earthquake And Tunisia's Tempest

[Published 31 January 2011]

Egypt is experiencing increasing civil unrest leading to growing speculation that it will result in the overthrow of its leader for the past 30 years - Hosni Mubarak. Tunisia has already seen the forced flight of its long time President Zine Ben Ali on 14 January following huge demonstrations in that country.

Questions must now be asked as to whether similar popular protests will appear on the West Bank and in Gaza signaling challenges to the rule of Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza under Ismail Haniyeh.

On current indications it appears that neither will be subjected to similar calls for their removal by those they each govern within their respective fiefdoms - despite
the lead shown by the unprecedented displays of people power in Egypt and Tunisia and notwithstanding the revelations contained in the ongoing publication of the Palestine Papers by TV broadcaster Al Jazzera and The Guardian.

In many respects Abbas and Haniyeh share much in common with Mubarak and Ben Ali - but the conditions prevailing in the West Bank and Gaza are very different to those in Egypt and Tunisia.

Abbas is an unelected and unconstitutional President whose use by date expired on 9 January 2009 - but was unilaterally extended by him for another 12 months. He still continues in office after the expiry of that deadline with no fresh elections in contemplation. His Government - headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad - is also unelected having been appointed by Presidential decree.

Abbas’s position is further complicated by the fact that he is also Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and also Chairman of Fatah - the largest faction in the PLO.

The disclosures in the Palestine Papers of Abbas being possibly prepared to forego “red lines” publicly espoused by the PLO for the last 40 years such as

1. the demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to emigrate to Israel and
2. the refusal to recognize Israel’s claim to sovereignty in any part of the West Bank

have been met by vehement denials by Abbas and his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat who have branded such publications as “forgeries”.

Their denials have apparently been accepted by the West Bank Arab population which seems to be satisfied with

1. the economic pace of progress being achieved in the West Bank
2. the Israeli easing of restrictions on travel between various parts of the West Bank and
3. the relative peace and calm existing in the West Bank compared to the turbulence and havoc existing in Gaza

The West Bank population would also see diplomatic progress being achieved by Abbas in the recognition being afforded by many countries to the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 armistice lines - even though such recognition is of no legal import and can never occur without the approval of Israel.

Any reason for civil unrest on the scale seen in Egypt and Tunisia therefore seems to be a remote possibility in the West Bank at the present time.

Haniyeh rules in Gaza as the Prime Minister of a Hamas dominated Government following the elections held in the West Bank and Gaza on 25 January 2006. Abbas dismissed Haniyeh from office on 14 June 2007 at the height of the Fatah-Hamas conflict, but Haniyeh did not acknowledge the decree and continues to exercise prime ministerial authority in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Legislative Council also continues to recognise his authority.

The European Union Election Observation Mission - which had been present in the West Bank and Gaza since 13 December 2005 to observe the conduct of the elections that swept Hamas and its leader Haniyeh to power - concluded:

“The 25 January [2006] elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) have so far marked another important milestone in the building of democratic institutions. These elections saw impressive voter participation in an open and fairly-contested electoral process that was efficiently administered by a professional and independent Palestinian Central Elections Commission (CEC). “

Regrettably this benchmark in the building of democratic institutions was a one-off event that has left the Gazan Arabs with no possibility of rectifying - by another election - the misfortune that has subsequently been heaped on them by the Government of their choice.

Haniyeh shows no inclination to call fresh elections - despite there being no functioning opposition in Gaza to his continuing promotion of policies that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel rather than improving the welfare and social advancement of his own constituency.

The Charter of Hamas unequivocally states:

” When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad” (Article 15)

“The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam… Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims” (Article 28)

It would take acts of inordinate courage to seek to publicly call for the removal of a Government which is increasingly being seen as the standard bearer of the long held Arab dream to eliminate the Jewish State and free any part of former Palestine from Jewish control.

Fear is the dominant condition prevailing in Gaza that will ensure there are no civilian street protests calling for the replacement of Haniyeh. Hamas would be brutal in snuffing out any such protests.

Instead one can expect to see continuing rallies calling for the destruction of Israel and the removal of Abbas as the illegitimate President of the Palestinian National Authority. Maintaining the focus on these issues in Gaza will ensure Hamas and Haniyeh will continue to rule Gaza with an iron fist.

Whilst other Arab states with long serving unelected leaders may be quaking in their boots at what might occur to them - the West Bank and Gaza seem set to escape the public awakening that is fast overtaking the Middle East.

Palestine And The Arab League - Fake Freedom Fighters

[Published 24 January 2011]

The Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Arab League member States continue to deny their populations basic political rights and civil liberties - according to a Report recently published by Freedom House. At the same time the Arab League is mounting an intensive campaign to delegitimise Israel - the only State in the Middle East where such freedoms exist.

The Freedom House report is an annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties carried out in 194 countries and 14 territories around the World.

Freedom House defines itself as:

an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.”

In determining what constitutes “political rights” and “civil liberties” - Freedom House has drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the following components of freedom which include an individual’s ability to:

1.Participate freely in the political process;
2.Vote freely in legitimate elections;
3.Have representatives that are accountable to them;
4.Exercise freedoms of expression and belief;
5.Be able to freely assemble and associate;
6.Have access to an established and equitable system of rule of law;
7.Have social and economic freedoms, including equal access to economic opportunities and the right to hold private property.

Freedom House has determined that 18 of the 22 Arab League member States all rate very poorly and fall into the category of being “Not Free” which is defined as :

“…one where basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied.”

The remaining 4 Arab League members are categorized as being “Partly Free” being countries which are defined as :

“characterised by some restrictions on political rights and civil liberties - often in the context of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic strife or civil law.”

Israel is the only State in the Middle East that is identified as being “Free“ meaning:

“a country where there is broad scope for open political political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life and independent media”.

As Latin American States apparently fall over themselves to accord recognition to a non-existent Palestinian State in total contravention of international law as prescribed by the Montevideo Convention - it is time for them - and others who might be similarly minded - to ponder

1. what kind of State they are promoting and
2. the extent to which such State does not accord with the principles laid down in the Road Map - the basis on which all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been conducted for the last seven years under the auspices of America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations

The Road Map articulated that any such Palestinian State must be “democratic” as was made clear by the following provisions:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established…

A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

The Freedom House Report notes that the Palestinian Authority controls up to 40% of the West Bank territory and 98% of the Palestinian population outside of East Jerusalem. Hamas controls 100% of Gaza as well as its entire population.

Any signs of a a leadership acting decisively to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty in either the West Bank or Gaza is totally absent according to the Freedom House Report.

The current push for recognition of “Palestine” as an independent State is becoming an exercise in creating yet another State whose citizens will continue to be denied the basic freedoms and civil liberties that are currently enjoyed by some of its current democratic proponents - Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

That was clearly not the objective of the Road Map - to which those Latin American States gave their support in 2003.

Since it still supposedly remains the only game in town prescribing the “two-state solution” - the Road Map is rapidly ending up as a document that

1. is not worth the paper it is written on
2. espouses a democratic state that will not be achieved and
3. has been rejected as the basis of a two-state solution by some democratic countries who have now decided to assign the civilian populations of the West Bank and Gaza to the same fate as all the surrounding Arab populations in the Middle East Arab States.

The Arab League meantime fails to recognize Israel and pursues campaigns encouraging boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel - whilst at the same time its member states deny their populations the political rights and civil liberties that are enjoyed by Israel’s population - including the 20% of Israel’s population that is Arab.

The Freedom House report stands as a monument to the eternal shame of the Arab League and to those democratic countries who have been seduced into accepting the Arab League’s spurious hate campaign to eradicate the State of Israel.

Fareed Zakaria - the host of CNN’s flagship foreign affairs show, Editor-at-Large of TIME Magazine, a Washington Post columnist, and a New York Times bestselling author described by Esquire Magazine as “the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation.” - says of the Freedom House Report:

“While there are many sources of economic data, good political data is hard to find. Freedom House’s survey is an exception. For anyone concerned with the state of freedom, or simply with the state of the world, Freedom in the World is an indispensible guide.”

Those democratic States ignoring the clear message contained in the Report and abandoning the signposting in the Road Map are not doing themselves - or the cause of liberating long suffering Arab populations denied their basic political rights and civil liberties - any favours.

Palestine - Time For Hard Questions And Even Harder Answers

[Published 19 January 2011]

“The answers are getting harder and harder And there ain’t no way to bargain or to barter” ~Blues Traveler


The international failure to accept the final breakdown of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was yet again highlighted in the communique issued in Sydney on 18 January 2011 at the conclusion of the Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations between Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith, and the United Kingdom’s First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague and Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox.

It seems as though both countries were living in a dream world of their own as they solemnly pronounced:
“Australia and the UK highlighted their strong support for a just and enduring peace in the Middle East based on a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and a future Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security. Both countries highlighted the urgent need for Israel and the Palestinians to return, as a matter of urgency, to direct talks on final status issues, and to refrain from actions which undermined confidence, such as settlement construction. Both countries reaffirmed their practical support for Palestinian institution-building in preparation for statehood.”
Surely the Ministers were engaging in wishful thinking with no possible hope of their wish-list ever coming to fruition.

With:

(i) direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority effectively ended,
ii) an impotent Quartet comprising America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations unable to bring the parties together and
(iii)a raft of countries recognizing or threatening to recognize a non- existent , undefined and undeclared 22nd Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in flagrant violation of international law

- it surely is time to question whether there is any reasonable prospect of ever achieving a negotiated two-state solution between Jews and Arabs pursuant to the Oslo Accords formulated in 1993 and the Roadmap proposed by President Bush in 2002.

There are those countries such as Australia and Great Britain that apparently believe such a resolution is still possible.

Yet 17 years of negotiations have only seen

(i) the division of the West Bank into three administrative districts and
(ii) the unilateral decision taken by Israel to evacuate Gaza in 2005.

The evacuation of Gaza has proved a total disaster

(i) ruining the lives of thousands of Jews forcibly removed from their homes,
(ii) splitting the area proposed for the new Arab state - the West Bank and Gaza - into two separate and separately administered entities with no prospects of reconciliation between the two governing political entities - the Palestinian Authority and Hamas
(iii)sparking the return of Israel’s army to Gaza in December 2009 to root out the threat posed to Israel’s civilian population by the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets from Gaza
(iv) causing Israel and Egypt to impose a blockade to prevent the entry of terrorists, arms and war materiel into Gaza

witnessing an ever increasing level of violence from Gaza and retaliation by Israel

Gaza and Hamas now appear to have been placed in the “too hard basket” by the international community. Instead it has thrown its weight behind the Palestinian Authority in seeking to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - a far cry from the two-state solution posited by Oslo and the Roadmap.

Administrative responsibility for 95% of the West Bank Arab population has been vested in the Palestinian Authority and has indeed begun to see a marked improvement in their daily lives.

However the continuing refusal of the Palestinian Authority to moderate its political claims to sovereignty in anything less than 100% of the entire territory of the West Bank remains a stumbling block that has precluded any progress at all in resolving the division of sovereignty in the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

There are other impediments to the conflict that have defied resolution and increasingly make it certain that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are already dead and buried.

If countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom still believe otherwise - then they would do well to seek answers to the following questions from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

1. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

2. Does the Palestinian Authority intend to persist with its demand that every square centimeter of the West Bank be ceded to it by Israel or is it prepared to accept less in exchange for an equivalent land swap by Israel?

3. Is Israel prepared to contemplate a land swap?

4. Is the Palestinian Authority still committed to former Arab residents of what is now Israel or their descendants being given the right to return to live there, what would be the appropriate number the Palestinian Authority would demand be given this right and what number would Israel be prepared to accept?

5. Is Israel prepared to allow the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan in the West Bank with full and unfettered access and control over West Bank air space?

6. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to accept a State in the West Bank with restricted control over its air space?

7. Is Israel prepared to evacuate and relocate all the Jewish residents of the West Bank?

8. Is Israel prepared to cede its claims to sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem?
On any minimal understanding of the conflict - one could not expect answers to these questions that would pose the slightest optimism in believing the negotiated two-state solution has any chance of success.

The sooner alternative solutions are introduced to replace the failed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - the sooner the current dangerous impasse that threatens the resumption of hostilities can be averted.

Arabs start to tell the truth

This video is compulsory viewing for those who genuinely seek to see an end to the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.



Hear what the Arabs are now starting to say.

Following is an abbreviated transcript of what is said on the video.

"Why do Palestinians really want an Arab state inside the Land of Israel ?

Why do they want to turn Judea and Samaria (west bank) into an Arab/Palestinian state when they already have a palestinian state in Jordan?

Palestinian official, Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah's centeral comittee, told Al-Jazeera on September 23, 2011:

"Don't Tell the World We Want to Wipe Out Israel ...President [Abbas] understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall - what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.""If we say that we want to wipe Israel out....C'mon, it's too difficult. I! t's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself."

Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said: 

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist :

"Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?  

"We considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians -- they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag."

On 26 December 1981, King Hussein declared in an interview with the Arab newspaper "A - Nahar Al - Arabi" that

          "The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."

A Palestinian State - Not A Priority

[Published 23 May 2014]

By Yoram Ettinger

The Palestinian issue has benefited from the Arab/Muslim talk, but — due to the Palestinian record of intra-Arab subversion — has never been supported by the Arab/Muslim walk. Arab/Muslim policy makers have never considered the Palestinian issue a strategic interest, but rather a tactical instrument to advance intra-Arab or Muslim interests and to annihilate the Jewish state.

Irrespective of this, Palestine has been a geographic, not a national, concept, as evidenced by the lack of distinct, cohesive national character of its Arab inhabitants. This lack of cohesion has been intensified by the violent internal fragmentation along various lines: cultural (such as Bedouin vs. rural vs. urban sectors), geographic (e.g. mountain vs. coastal Arabs, southern vs. northern, Hebron vs. Bethlehem, Nablus vs. Ramallah, Nablus vs. Hebron), ethnic, ideological, political (pro- or anti-Jordan), historical and tribal identity. Such turbulent fragmentation was fueled by the multitude of Arab or Muslim migration waves from Bosnia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Lebanon.

The establishment of a Palestinian state was not on the agenda of the non-Arab Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1517 through 1917. The Ottomans linked the area, defined by most Arabs as a region within Southern Syria or the Levant, to the Damascus and Beirut provinces.

The British Empire, which dominated the Middle East from 1917 until the end of World War II, did not contemplate a Palestinian Arab state, while establishing a series of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the 1917 Balfour Declaration dedicated Palestine, including Jordan, to the Jewish homeland. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, formulated by the principal Allied Powers, formalized the Balfour Declaration-based British Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified on Aug. 12, 1922, by the League of Nations, eventually transferring 77 percent of Palestine (Jordan) to the Arabs. The U.S. House and Senate approved it unanimously on June 30, 1922. In 1945, the Mandate for Palestine was integrated into the U.N. Charter via Article 80, which precludes alterations, and is still legally binding.

Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1949 through 1967, but did not ponder the establishment of a Palestinian state; nor did the Arab League.

According to Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna of Ariel University, who headed the Palestinian Desk at the Mossad Research Division, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated in September 1947 that the core problem was not a Palestinian state or Jewish expansionism. The only priority was the duty to uproot the Jewish presence from Palestine, which was defined by Muslims as “Waqf” — an area divinely endowed to Islam and not to the “infidel.”

The elimination of Jews was the top priority of the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder and president of the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee and a collaborator with Nazi Germany. In September 1941, he submitted a memo to Adolf Hitler on “the resolution of the Jewish problem in the Middle East in the same manner it is resolved in Europe,” planning the construction of Auschwitz-like crematoriums in the Dothan Valley, adjacent to Nablus in Samaria. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas recently expressed his admiration for al-Husseini as a hero and martyr. Abbas appointed the current grand mufti of Jerusalem, who continues al-Husseini’s anti-Jewish hate education.

The limited role of the Palestinian issue was highlighted during the 1948 War of Independence. Jordan launched the war to eliminate the Jewish state, expand to the Mediterranean and advance the goal to dominate Greater Syria. Egypt and Saudi Arabia entered the war despite their inadequate military infrastructure, in order to abort Jordan’s imperialistic strategy. Iraq joined the war, aiming to control the oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa. Syria assumed that the destruction of the Jewish state would facilitate the reassertion of Greater Syria. On Sept. 20, 1948, the Arab League recognized the Arab government of the whole of Palestine, but ignored it, declaring it null and void in 1951-1952, causing the U.N. to refuse Palestinian participation in the General Assembly proceedings.

None of the Arab countries fought on behalf of, or due to, Palestinian Arab aspirations. They did not share with the Palestinian Arabs the spoils of war. Iraq occupied Samaria and transferred it to Jordan, which occupied Judea. In April 1950, Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria to the east bank of the Jordan River, naming it the West Bank. Egypt occupied Gaza and, just like Jordan, did not allow Palestinian nationalistic activities. None of the ensuing Arab-Israeli wars (1956, 1967, 1969-70 and 1973) were Palestinian-driven.

Furthermore, the Israel-Palestinian/PLO wars of 1982 (in Lebanon), 1987-1991 (the First Intifada) and 2000-2004 (the Second Intifada) and Israel’s wars with Hamas in 2009 and 2012 (in Gaza) did not engage the Arab states militarily or financially.

During the October 1994 Israel-Jordan peace signing ceremony, top Jordanian military leaders told their Israeli counterparts that “a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite kingdom east of the river.”

The Arab League and the U.N. did not raise the issue of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza until 1967, when the issue was raised as a means to undermine the survival of the Jewish state.

In fact, the Palestinian issue has never been a chief axis of U.S.-Israel relations. While the two administrations have never agreed on the Palestinian issue, their strategic cooperation has surged dramatically due to joint interests, mutual threats and shared values, which significantly transcend the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, ignoring reality, Western policy makers consider the Palestinian issue the crown jewel of Arab policy-making, the core cause of Middle Eastern developments and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. An erroneous underlying, Palestinian-driven assumption has produced an erroneous policy, radicalizing Arab and Palestinian expectations, fueling terrorism and inherent Middle Eastern instability, distancing the parties from peace and bringing them closer to war, and undermining Western national security and vital economic interests.