Archive for the ‘Arafat’ category

Crossing the Rubicon

August 27, 2017

Crossing the Rubicon, Israel Hayom, Sarah N. Stern, August 27, 2017

On Wednesday, at a U.S. State Department press briefing, the Rubicon was finally crossed. Responding to a question regarding Israeli-Palestinian ‎peace, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said, “We want to work toward a peace that both sides can agree to and both sides find ‎sustainable. … We believe that both parties should be able to find a workable solution that works for ‎both of them. We are not going to state what the outcome has to be. … It’s been many, many decades, ‎as you well know, that the parties have not been able to come to any kind of good agreement and ‎sustainable solution to this. So we leave it up to them to be able to work through that.”‎

This is the most constructive statement I have heard about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in decades. ‎For the last several years, the “experts” have been saying, “We all know what a solution to the ‎Palestinian-Israeli conflict looks like.”

If anyone ever took the time to listen to the parties themselves, and examine the cultural context in ‎which these words are spoken, they would immediately understand that the single most critical litmus ‎test for determining a negotiating partner’s real intentions is not what they say to visiting diplomats ‎and journalists in English, but what they say among themselves in their own language, and in particular, what they ‎teach their children. ‎

According to John Calvin (formerly “Jonaid Salameh,” before his conversion to Christianity), an EMET fellow who was born in Nablus, from the very earliest age, he ‎was taught there would not be two states, but one state called Palestine. An important slogan on everyone’s tongue in the disputed territories is “Lama neharherah,” meaning “When we free ‎it” — and “it” is all of Israel.

Calvin told me ‎that this belief is a certainty, that the average Palestinian feels it is destiny that eventually all of the ‎land will be free of Jews.‎

Surah 8, verse 38 of the Quran says, “Tell the unbelievers that if they desist from evil, their past shall be forgiven and if they revert to their past ways, then it is well known what happened with the people of the past.” According to Calvin, the interpretation is clear: There should ‎be conflict until all worship is only to Allah.

Part of this cultural context implies a different meaning of the word “peace.” Accepting the existence ‎of the other on their own terms is incompatible with true Islamic thought. Islam is a religion of ‎conquest.‎

Says Calvin, “The conception of peace, as we know it in the West, simply does not exist within Islam. ‎There can be a “hudna,” a temporary cessation of war, but only to regroup. Islam means total ‎submission, or surrender, and a permanent peace can only happen when the entire world surrenders ‎to Islamic rule. There is that sort of messianic concept of peace, but only after the entire world submits ‎to Islamic rule.”‎

Many individual Muslims, particularly in places like Indonesia, Pakistan and India, where Arabic is not the ‎native tongue, may not understand the Quran in a literal sense, and thus, may not hold these sort of ‎hegemonic beliefs.‎

Most Americans, including many so-called “experts” in the field, have no idea of the cultural context with which ‎they are dealing when they set out to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.‎

In former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s autobiography, “My Life,” he describes how profoundly disappointed he had been with then-PLO Chairman ‎Yasser Arafat after generous offers were made to the Palestinian leader by Prime ‎Minister Ehud Barak in the Camp David negotiations. Arafat did not respond in the affirmative or the ‎negative, but simply walked away from the table. His response came several months later, in the ‎form of the Second Intifada.

In a moving chapter, Clinton describes how, just as he was about to leave office, ‎Arafat called him up and told him he was a great man.‎

“Mr. Chairman,” Clinton replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”

It obviously has been more important for Arafat, as well as his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, who turned down an ‎even more generous offer from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to continue the struggle then to arrive at a permanent ‎peace.‎

For decades, too many Western leaders and diplomats have tried to impose a solution that ‎looks ideal when viewed through Western lenses. ‎

These statesmen, however, do not have to be there on the ground when the maximalist offers are ‎walked away from, and the inevitable violence ensues. ‎

Thank you, Heather Nauert, for taking us a bit closer to reality.‎

Sarah N. Stern is founder and president of EMET, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a pro-Israel think tank and policy shop in Washington, D.C.‎

Palestinians recall fond memories of late Cuban leader Castro

November 27, 2016

Palestinians recall fond memories of late Cuban leader Castro, Jerusalem PostAdam Rasgon, November 27, 2016

fidelcigarFile picture of Fidel Castro smoking a cigar during interview with the press in Havana. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Palestinian political and civil society leaders reacted to the death of former Cuban President Fidel Castro over the weekend, remembering him as a strong supporter of the Palestinian people and cause.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas hailed the former Cuban president in a letter to current Cuban President Raul Castro on Saturday. “On behalf of the Palestinian people, the State of Palestine, and myself, we offer you and the friendly Cuban people our deepest condolences on the passing of Fidel Castro, a man who spent his life sternly defending his country’s and people’s causes in addition to just and righteous causes around the world,” the PA president wrote.

Abbas ordered Palestinian flags to be set a half-staff on Sunday, according to Wafa, the official PA news site.

Raul Castro, the current Cuban President, announced on Cuban state television on Saturday that “the commander-in-chief of the Cuban revolution died.”

A Hamas leader in Gaza, who spoke to The Jerusalem Post on the condition of anonymity, said that Palestinians have fond memories of Fidel. “He was a symbol of the national struggle. His relationship to the Palestinian cause and Mr. Yasser Arafat was very strong,” the Hamas leader stated. “He was a brother in the resistance and stood in the face of colonialists, similar to Nelson Mandela.”

Cuba, under Fidel’s leadership, was the only Latin American country to vote against the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which recommended the division of the British Mandate of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab-Palestinian states.

PLO Executive Committee Member Wasel Abu Yousif told the Post Castro’s death is a great loss. “He always supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian people in their struggle to establish an independent Palestinian state and welcomed President Arafat to Cuba in the early 1970s,” the top PLO official remarked. “We thank Castro, who represented the revolutionary spirit, for everything that he did in terms of his political and moral support for Palestine.”

Fidel welcomed Arafat in Cuba in 1974 in his first of many visits to Cuba, where he was treated as a head of state. Fidel also supported the Palestinian leadership in a number of international forums including the UN and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Sam Bahour, a Palestinian businessman and political commentator, told the Post, that Castro distinguished himself as a “consistent” supporter of the Palestinian people. “There’s a sense of respect for his consistent support to the Palestinian struggle,” Bahour stated. “He stood with the Palestine when it was alone without trying to impose any agenda on it. His support was in line with what Palestinians defined as what they needed.”

Fidel resigned as Cuban President in 2008 and largely remained out of the public’s eye in the remaining years of his life.

Atwan: ISIS Savagery – from Islamic History; West Likely to “Contain” ISIS Like It Contained Arafat

February 5, 2016

Atwan: ISIS Savagery – from Islamic History; West Likely to “Contain” ISIS Like It Contained Arafat, MEMRI-TV via You Tube, February 4, 2016



From the blurb beneath the video:

In a December 15 lecture about ISIS at the American University in Beirut, Abdel Bari Atwan, former editor-in-chief of “Al-Quds Al-Arabi” and the current editor-in-chief of “Al-Rai Al-Youm” rejected common claims that the savagery of ISIS is alien to Islam, presenting examples of similar conduct from Islamic history. Atwan said that the West faces two options: to contain ISIS or to destroy it. The former is more likely than the latter, he added. The West always starts by trying to destroy organizations that it considers to be terrorist and ends up negotiating with them, Atwan said, citing the Taliban, the PLO, and the IRA as prominent examples.

Center Field: Palestinian terrorism plus Western appeasement equals today’s Islamist

December 9, 2015

Center Field: Palestinian terrorism plus Western appeasement equals today’s Islamist, Jerusalem Post, Gil Troy, December 8, 2015

ShowImage (18)A Palestinian stone-thrower looks on as he stands in front of a fire during clashes with IDF troops in the West Bank village of Duma. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Most academics today are too politically correct to admit it – and too busy boycotting democratic Israel. But when future historians connect the dots to explain the origins of al-Qaida, Islamic State and today’s scourge of Islamist terrorism, the pattern will be undeniable. Yasser Arafat was the grandfather of Osama bin Laden and all modern terrorists. Moreover, Western appeasement of Palestinian terrorism – cravenly displayed at Munich – proved that claiming “terrorism doesn’t pay” is delusional: terrorism works thanks to Western weakness. Violence put the Palestinians on the international agenda and cast them as the ultimate oppressed Third Worlders to many totalitarian leftists – who today exaggerate Palestinians’ suffering, importance and impotence.


Last Tuesday, two widows of the Israeli Olympians murdered at Munich in 1972 revealed that the eight Palestinian terrorists beat the hostages who survived their initial assault. The attackers also shot Yossef Romano when he resisted, then castrated him. These horrifying details, sandwiched between the Paris massacre and the San Bernadino bloodbath, amid the latest wave of Palestinian violence, reinforced a fact that terrorist- deniers and Palestinian apologists deny: The world’s tolerance for Palestinian terrorism, starting in the 1970s, made it the gateway crime to Islamist terrorism – understanding a gateway crime as both evil and trailblazing, normalizing. As one friend cleverly noted: “ The suicide vest found in the garbage bin in Paris might as well have had ‘Made in Palestine’ stitched on it. Guess that’s a label the European Union lets into the continent.”

Most academics today are too politically correct to admit it – and too busy boycotting democratic Israel. But when future historians connect the dots to explain the origins of al-Qaida, Islamic State and today’s scourge of Islamist terrorism, the pattern will be undeniable. Yasser Arafat was the grandfather of Osama bin Laden and all modern terrorists. Moreover, Western appeasement of Palestinian terrorism – cravenly displayed at Munich – proved that claiming “terrorism doesn’t pay” is delusional: terrorism works thanks to Western weakness. Violence put the Palestinians on the international agenda and cast them as the ultimate oppressed Third Worlders to many totalitarian leftists – who today exaggerate Palestinians’ suffering, importance and impotence.

In September 1972, the International Olympic Committee president, Avery Brundage, became the sniveling symbol of Western appeasement. More protective of his games than the kidnapped athletes, he allowed the Olympics to continue for 10 hours as the Palestinians tortured the Israelis. Then, after the terrorists murdered the hostages and one German policeman during Germany’s botched rescue attempt, Brundage insisted the games continue after a short 24-hour pause. One Los Angeles Times columnist wrote: “It’s almost like having a dance at Dachau.”

The Olympic Committee has never commemorated the murdered Israelis with a moment of silence (although one is planned for 2016), hoping not to “politicize” the games, meaning anger Arabs and Muslims.

Barely two months after this debacle, West Germany used a false hijacking ruse to free the three surviving terrorists. In return, the PLO promised not to attack Germany. In 1999, one terrorist, Jamal al-Gashey, boasted: “I am proud of what I did at Munich because it helped the Palestinian cause enormously. Before Munich the world had no idea about our struggle, but on that day the name of Palestine was repeated all over the world.” In September 1970, Palestinian terrorists hijacked planes and destroyed them in Jordan, but Munich became their big international premier.

Six months after Munich, on March 1, 1973, America – under a supposedly tough Republican Richard Nixon – caved despite losing two diplomats in a Palestinian raid against the Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The two Americans, Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, along with a Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, were the only hostages murdered – after Yasser Arafat sent the terrorists a coded radio message, asking: “Why are you waiting? The people’s blood in the Cold River cries for vengeance.” “Cold River” was the pre-arranged code for “kill them.”

The Sudanese soon freed all eight terrorists and the Americans never hunted down these killers. Less than two years later, in November, 1974, Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly. Two decades after that, this unrepentant murderer of Americans would win the Nobel Peace, be the most frequent foreign guest Bill Clinton hosted at the White House and bring his people to the brink of a peace treaty and their own state, only to lead them back to terrorism, delegitimization and cries to exterminate the Jewish state.

The Palestinians chose well in targeting Israel, especially during the 1970s. Directing terrorism against the Jewish state triggered decades of blaming the victims and excusing the perpetrators. The anti-Semitic hostility so many Westerners have toward Israel, the Jew among the nations, reinforced the growing post-Sixties culture of Western guilt, self-abnegation, appeasement and enabling of violent enemies – as long as they could define themselves as people of color. Radicals cast democratic Israel, forced to defend itself, as an imperial force not an embattled state, while casting Palestinian terrorists as freedom fighters not pathological killers.

Rather than noting how few peoples suffering far more turn terrorist, rather than wondering why Palestinians targeted innocent women, children, elders, Blame Israel Firsters assumed that Palestinians’ cruelty somehow reflected Israeli cruelty. Israel must be very guilty of intense oppression to merit such hatred, the politically correct assumed, rather than scrutinizing the Palestinian death cult that fed off anti-Semitism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Arafat’s success and the West’s limp response helped weaponize an exclusivist, bigoted, triumphalist Islamist ideology, inspiring al-Qaida, Islamic State and others.

Even today, President Barack Obama hesitates to label terrorism terrorism and dodges the phrase “radical Islamism” – even when a jihadist major shot up Fort Hood in 2009 or a San Bernardino shooter posted an IS manifesto. True, Obama has hunted some terrorists aggressively, but his ideological confusion has emboldened terrorists – and reflects this broader international muddle in facing evil.

If I were Palestinian or Muslim, I would be ashamed. So far, the great Palestinian contribution to civilization has been terrorism; “Palestinian” as a modifier most frequently appears before the word “terrorism” – 32 million times, a Google search shows. The phrase “Islamic terrorism” appears 201 million times. Don’t they want to be known for constructive contributions? Without a robust internal critique, among Palestinians, among Muslims, terrorism will continue. Golda Meir’s aphorism needs updating. Yes, Palestinians must love their children more than they hate our own before peace comes. And Palestinians must also become terrified of being considered terrorists.

‘The US fails to understand the complexity of the Middle East’

November 24, 2015

‘The US fails to understand the complexity of the Middle East’ Israel National News, Benny Tucker, November 24, 2015

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) this week will only heighten tensions – not calm terrorism, former Israeli ambassador to the US Dr. Yoram Ettinger opined Tuesday. 

“This visit unfortunately will not not mitigate terrorism, but on the contrary, pour oil on the fire of terrorism,” he stated, in a special Arutz Sheva interview. “Why reward and meet Mahmoud Abbas, the chief instigator?”

Washington continues to remain disconnected from reality, he said.

“The former senator met with Assad, both the father and the son, and ate dinner with their wives,” he noted. “(Kerry) refers to the Golan Heights as ‘trivial’ and pressured Israel to give up the Golan. He used to hold [PLO archterrorist Yasser] Arafat in high regard and referred to him as a ‘statesman of peace’; as Secretary of State he still maintains that the Arab Spring is leading Arab countries to democracy.”

Ettinger added that Kerry’s career is characterized by ‘erroneous assessments”; “so surely, again, he will call on Israel to make gestures [toward the Palestinians] and give over the immoral equivalence comparing terrorist to victim.”

“Experience shows that all the attempts and plans the US have made [regarding Israel] have failed one by one, due to lack of understanding of the complexity of the Middle East,” he concluded. “Both the peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan were the result of Israeli initiatives and direct negotiations – not indirect negotiations and not through middlemen.”

Palestinian ‘recognition’ is a bloody lie

November 6, 2015

Palestinian ‘recognition’ is a bloody lie, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, November 6, 2015

It is not nice to be amused while Israelis are being stabbed, stoned and run over by frenzied young terrorists. But how can one keep a straight face when hearing the Palestinian Authority’s spin the situation?

With a little charisma-coaching, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas could be a stand-up comic; he’s already got an international audience applauding his primitive discourse. Imagine the gigs he would get if he polished his act.

One routine the terrorist-in-a-tie needs to hone is his song-and-dance about canceling the Oslo Accords — the 1993 agreement between his predecessor, PLO chief Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, for which the two received the Nobel Peace Prize.

This was funny enough by itself, since peace was the one element of the treaty establishing the PA that eluded the whole process. Furthermore, only the Palestinian side benefited from it. Arafat received accolades, along with lots of land. Formerly a terrorist pariah, he was suddenly granted full-fledged legitimacy as a player on the world stage. Even the Second Intifada — the suicide-bombing war he launched after blowing up negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 at Camp David — did not rob him of his ill-deserved peace prize.

Abbas, on the other hand, was given the benefit of the doubt from the get-go. Though an Arafat loyalist and a Holocaust denier, he came to power after the PA was a recognized entity — he wears a suit rather than military garb and an Islamic keffiyeh. Therefore, he was automatically seen as a more Western kind of guy.

But he, too, was out for Israel’s destruction “in stages.” And he also perpetrated terror against innocent Israelis while pretending to negotiate peace. Nor do any gestures on Israel’s part to appease him suffice, because his aim is not actually statehood in the true sense of the word. It is, rather, the mantra and mantle for keeping himself relevant at home and abroad.

So when, on September 30, he told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel “leaves us no choice but to insist that we will not remain the only ones committed to the implementation” of the Oslo Accords, it is a miracle that he did not elicit howls of laughter from the peanut gallery in New York.

This week, PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat, who was among the chief negotiators of the Oslo Accords and subsequent phony “peace talks,” took the comedy act a step further. He told the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi on Thursday that the Palestinians may have to rescind their recognition of Israel.

One would be hard-pressed to find a bigger hoot than that.

In the first place, though the only concrete action required of the Palestinians at Oslo was to amend the PLO charter calling for Israel’s annihilation — and even this was only promised in a series of letters exchanged between Rabin and Arafat — its newer version was never ratified.

Second, Israel is the only party that has upheld its commitments — only using military force in self-defense.

The Palestinian terrorism war that is currently being waged against innocent civilians and soldiers erupted, according to Abbas and his henchmen, as a result of a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount. That there was no such change makes no difference. Spreading lies is how the Palestinian leadership operates. Its success at the dissemination of propaganda only serves to strengthen its resolve.

And this time around, Abbas is letting the kids do his dirty work, with knives and rocks, without having to lift a finger — other than for emphasis when denouncing Israel at the U.N.

There are disagreements among Israeli politicians, pundits and the public about how to handle the current crisis. Debates on the viability or wisdom of the two-state solution are rehashed ad nauseam, to the point where it is not clear whether to cry or yawn. But a crucial little factoid keeps getting drowned out in the cacophony and camouflaged by blood: No official Palestinian body has ever recognized the Jewish state. This is worthy of at least a partial smile, because something that never existed cannot be canceled.

The Holocaust is OVER

October 25, 2015

The Holocaust is OVER, The Gatestone InstituteShoshana Bryen, October 25, 2015

  • This minute, the UN is labeling one of the oldest existing symbols of Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel — the Tomb of Rachel, wife of the biblical patriarch Jacob — as a Muslim holy site.
  • The UN had not a word, however, about the Muslims who burned the Jewish holy site at Joseph’s Tomb last week. This omission raises a different question: the same Joseph is also a prophet in Islam; why are they firebombing his tomb?
  • Abbas has been lying about threats to the status quo on the Temple Mount, and proposing his own change: The Jews, he said, have no right to “desecrate” the mosque with their “filthy feet.”
  • Watch a beautiful little girl with a large knife tell her approving father, “I want to stab a Jew.”
  • In 2000, the New York Times wrote about Arafat’s summer “war-game camps” in Gaza, teaching Palestinian children how to prepare for battle. That is fifteen years of learning to kill Jews and creating child soldiers: a violation of the UN Convention on Child Soldiers, and one reason so many young Palestinians are primed for violence.
  • In the summer of 2015, tens of thousands of teenagers in Gaza participated in these “summer camps” to learn from their Hamas teachers to kill Jews.
  • If what happened in the 1930s and 1940s, however, is allowed to turn our attention from the current threats to the Jewish State, we will have granted Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem a belated victory they do not deserve.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, set off a firestorm on October 21 by saying that the Mufti of Jerusalem had actually planted the idea of exterminating the Jews in Hitler’s mind; that Hitler would have simply ousted them from Europe.

Scholars, academicians, politicians, friends and enemies of Jews, Israel, and Netanyahu leapt to the barricades. The Washington Post had the story on the front page. Twitter and blogs have overflowed with it. The Chancellor of Germany found it oddly necessary to say, “Germany is responsible for the Holocaust.”

But enough about who, between two long-dead anti-Semites, was the worst. It is a distraction and provides cover for today’s racists and those who would destroy Israel.

Palestinian agitator Saeb Erekat used the tumult to weigh in. In the latest Palestinian effort to rewrite history, he said, “Palestine’s efforts against Nazis, are deep-rooted part of our history.”

Palestinian Authority (PA) strongman Mahmoud Abbas, a Holocaust denier at least since his PhD days (and now in the 10th year of his four-year term, so he cannot be called “President”) did not say anything on that subject. He does, however continue to incite Palestinians to kill Jews. Right now, today, this minute.

Abbas has been lying about threats to the status quo on the Temple Mount, and proposing his own change: The Jews, he said, have no right to “desecrate” the mosque with their “filthy feet.” He then assures those Palestinians who go out to kill Jews — because they understood the recommendation to be officially sanctioned — that, “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr] will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.”

Also, right now, today, this minute, the United Nations is labeling one of the oldest existing symbols of Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel — the Tomb of Rachel, wife of the biblical patriarch Jacob — as a Muslim holy site. The U.S., U.K., Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, and Estonia voted against this surreal piracy. But 26 other countries voted in favor of a resolution, totally fraudulent, that condemned Israel for aggression and illegal measures taken against the “freedom of worship and access” of Muslims to Al-Aqsa mosque and Israel’s “attempts to break the status quo since 1967.”

The UN had not a word, however, about the Muslims who burned the Jewish holy site at Joseph’s Tomb last week. This omission raises a different question: the same Joseph is also a prophet in Islam; what are they doing firebombing his tomb?

In addition, right now, today, this minute, the State of Israel is under physical and political attack, and its best ally, the United States, is largely absent. Secretary of State John Kerry admonished, “We continue to urge everybody to exercise restraint and restrain [sic] from any kind of self-help in terms of the violence, and Israel has every right in the world to protect its citizens, as it has been, from random acts of violence.”

No self-help? Kerry specifically said it; he meant that if the government shows up and kills the terrorist before he kills, fine, but he does not want Israelis to take their defense into their own hands. That is not the way defense is done in America, and it is not the way it is done in Israel. The United States is abandoning a core American value in pursuit of the chimera of Israeli-Palestinian “peace.”

Right now, this minute, young Palestinian children are being marinated in Jew-hatred by their parents and by their society. Watch a beautiful little girl with a large knife tell her approving father, “I want to stab a Jew.” Watch a Palestinian children’s TV program in which a girl of about 10, her hair covered, draped in a Palestinian shawl, tell other children that the “martyrs” are “grown up kids.” She compares their number to the number of dead Israelis. “It’s almost like a game,” she says.

1313(Image source: MEMRI)

In 2000, before the so-called “second intifada,” the New York Times wrote about Yasser Arafat’s summer “war-game camps” in Gaza, teaching young Palestinian children how to prepare for the battle they would fight. That is fifteen years of learning to kill Jews — and fifteen years of creating child soldiers: a violation of the UN Convention on Child Soldiers, and one reason so many young Palestinians are primed for violence. Any Palestinian now under the age of, say, 23 could have had that “training.” In the summer of 2015, tens of thousands of teenagers in Gaza participated in these “summer camps” to learn from their Hamas teachers to kill Jews.

Even before that — since the Palestinians created their own school curriculum 21 years ago, in 1994, under the Oslo Accords — Palestinian children have been exposed to lies, incitement to violence and raw anti-Semitism, in the schools of the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. Palestinians under the age of 30 spend most of their formative years in schools that deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel and that deny any connection of the Jews to the land.

We are currently seeing the results of the long-term abuse of Palestinian children by their parents and teachers — abetted by the United Nations.

There have been many calls for the U.S. to defund the Palestinian Authority, either completely or in part. This week Congress, in rare bipartisan agreement, took up part of the challenge, stripping $80 million from $370 million of U.S. economic aid to the Palestinian Authority.

History provides a framework for understanding today’s politics. The Mufti of Jerusalem was not only a kindred spirit of Hitler; he spent much of the war in Berlin as the guest of like-minded practitioners of Jew-hatred. If what happened in the 1930s and 1940s, however, is allowed to turn our attention from the current threats to the Jewish State, we will have granted them a belated victory they do not deserve.

Crazy like a fox

October 23, 2015

Crazy like a fox, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, October 23, 2015



Due to his “gaffe,” every Western media outlet reported on Husseini’s actions. Some even mentioned that in his PhD dissertation, current Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said the Holocaust was both a myth and a joint Zionist-Nazi project. For most Westerners, this is the first they’ve heard of the fact that the Palestinian’s George Washington was a Nazi war criminal.


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is crazy like a fox.

Netanyahu’s assertion on Tuesday before the World Zionist Congress that the founder of the Palestinian people, Haj Amin al-Husseini, convinced Adolf Hitler to eradicate rather than expel the Jews of Europe was an overstatement of Husseini’s role.

No, the Holocaust was not Husseini’s idea.

But he was a partner in perpetrating and promoting it. He also made it inevitable.

As I detailed in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, during the course of Husseini’s meeting with Hitler in Berlin in November 1941, Hitler told the Arab leader of his plan to eradicate European Jewry.

Husseini told Hitler that he would support the Nazis, and rally the Arab world to their side, if Hitler agreed to two conditions: that Hitler support his bid to rule over a postwar Arab state comprised of present-day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel; and that Hitler support the genocide of Middle Eastern Jewry.

As both the official Nazi record and Husseini’s summary of the meeting in his diary report, Hitler accepted Husseini’s demands.

And it makes sense that he did.

Husseini proved his loyalty to the Nazis long before he arrived in Berlin. His romance with them began with Hitler’s election victory in 1933. From then on, Husseini’s followers in Mandatory Palestine greeted one another with the Nazi salute. Swastikas festooned their towns. The Nazis began directly funding Husseini’s terror war against the Jews of Israel and British Mandatory officials in 1937.

In 1937, the British forced Husseini to flee the country. In 1941, he organized and incited a pro-Nazi military coup in Iraq. The British were forced to invade Iraq in response to the coup.

Husseini then fled to Rome where he met with Mussolini and went on the Berlin, where he remained for the duration of the war.

As the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Husseini invented and shaped the Palestinian national ethos in a manner that aligned with his pathological hatred of the Jews. Rather than providing the Palestinian Arabs with a positive vision of a future state that would safeguard and cultivate them as a distinct Arab nation, he shaped Palestinian society as a wholly negative phenomenon. It was seeded in a hybrid hatred of Jews that fused Koranic hostility to Jews with racism-based annihilationist European anti-Semitism rooted in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which Husseini translated and published in Arabic.

The goal of Husseini’s nationalist drive was not to form a Palestinian Arab state, but to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state and to annihilate all aspects of the Jewish national liberation movement through a campaign a terror and political warfare.

Husseini’s goal of leading an Arab state that encompassed Iraq and the entire Levant shows that the founding father of the Palestinian national project did not view “Palestine” as a distinct territorial entity.

After Hitler agreed to both of Husseini’s conditions, Husseini began his active collaboration in the Nazi war effort. He participated in the Holocaust directly. In 1943, he formed the SS Handschar Division comprised of Bosnian Muslims. His troops exterminated 90 percent of Bosnia’s 14,000-member Jewish community.

Husseini used his position as well to scuttle British attempts to trade German prisoners of war for Jews. In one such documented episode, in 1943 Husseini appealed to SS commander Heinrich Himmler to cancel a deal to exchange 4,500 Jewish children and 500 Jewish adults from Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria to cancel the deal and send the Jews to Auschwitz.

Himmler bowed to his appeal. The Jews were sent to the gas chambers.

Husseini contributed to the Holocaust indirectly.

Beginning shortly after his meeting with Hitler and extending through the end of the war, Husseini broadcast regular programs to the Arab world on Nazi short wave radio in Arabic. In those broadcasts he engendered support for the Nazis and the extermination of world Jewry. Using the mix of Islamic Jew-hatred and European annihilationist anti-Semitism he had developed in Jerusalem, Husseini cultivated a culture of support for the annihilation of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish (then nascent) state in the Land of Israel. That culture, bred through those broadcasts heard regularly by millions throughout the entire Arab world, still holds today.

Husseini was indicted as a war criminal in Nuremberg. Rather than try him, the allies allowed him to flee to Egypt in 1946. There he was greeted as a war hero by King Farouk.

It is true that Hitler didn’t need Husseini to convince him to annihilate European Jewry. By the time Husseini arrived in Germany, the Nazis had already murdered a million Jews.

But Netanyahu’s claim that Husseini made it impossible for Hitler to suffice with expelling the Jews from Europe is true. The only place that wanted the Jews of Europe was the nascent Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

Through his terror war against the Jews and the British Mandatory authorities, and through his incitement of pro-Nazi sentiment in Egypt, Iraq and the Levant, Husseini convinced the British to betray their legal obligation to allow free Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel and so closed off the Jews’ last avenue of escape from Nazi-dominated Europe.

As Netanyahu said, Husseini is revered and glorified by the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat claimed that he was Husseini’s political heir and blood relative as a means of legitimizing his claim to leadership over the Palestinians.

Hamas as well has invoked Husseini as its ideological founding father.

History in hand, it is time to return to Netanyahu, and his overstatement of Husseini’s role in the Holocaust.

From the time of Husseini till today, propaganda and terror have been the Palestinians’ weapons of choice in their war against the Jews. Internally lies are spread of nonexistent Jewish plots and imaginary acts of aggression, to incite and solicit the murder of Jews. Propaganda and lies are then used to glorify the murderers as heroes and martyrs.

Externally, the Palestinians spread lies about Palestinian victimhood at the hands of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers and security forces who seek to drive the Arabs from their homes. By casting themselves as victims to the outside world, the Palestinians ensure that Israeli responses to their acts of aggression are perceived as acts of aggression, which they are fully justified in attempting to defy through murderous rampages against Jews.

The Palestinians recognize that for their terror to be acceptable to the West, they must portray themselves as guileless victims. Hence, they repeatedly insist the absurd claim that terrorists who deliberately kill Jews by running them over, are really merely victims involved in traffic accidents. The Palestinian teenage girl who this week sought to infiltrate the community of Yitzhar with a carving knife, suffers from “sleepwalking.”

These ridiculous lies are only credible in a world devoid of any historical knowledge of the Palestinians’ 95-year history of aggression against the Jews. And so the Palestinians have invented a false history of their war against Israel in which thousands of years of Jewish history is blotted out, and thousands of years of Palestinian history have been invented out of whole cloth.

In this revised version of events, Husseini has been erased from history. His role in the Holocaust has been deleted. The fact that the goal of the Palestinian national movement from its inception has been to annihilate the Jewish state and that the annihilation of Israel remains its goal still today has similarly been washed out of the history books and the news pages.

To maintain this fictional account of current and historical events, the Palestinians depend on the collaboration of the Western media.

And with each passing year, that collaboration has grown more open, expansive and shameless.

Western reporting on the events of the day now are almost entirely devoid of any relationship to reality.

Consider just a few recent examples. CNN’s report of the Palestinian arson assault on Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus on October 16 contained no mention of the fact that the fire at the holy Jewish site was set by Palestinians. In the same report, the network stated, “In the past month, eight Israelis died in 30 attacks involving knives and other weapons.”

As if fires set themselves and angry knives wander the streets.

MSNBC’s reporter Ayman Mohyeldin was caught lying two weeks ago as he claimed that the knife-wielding Palestinian terrorist in the Old City of Jerusalem who was lunging toward security personnel as they killed him, was an unarmed, innocent bystander. As Mohyeldin spewed his lies, the video of the assault that clearly showed the terrorist wielding a knife was being broadcast to his viewers.

That embarrassment didn’t stop MSNBC from maintaining the myth of Israeli aggression, however.

The next week, the network posted a graphic of British Mandatory Palestine from 1946 which it claimed was the State of Palestine in 1946. The graphic them purported to show how the Jews stole ever more Palestinian land in the years that followed. Although the network was forced to broadcast a retraction, the lie that Palestine once existed had already been told.

Then of course there was The New York Times with its stunning “background” piece purporting to provide its readers with historical context regarding the competing Israeli and Palestinian claims regarding the Temple Mount. The Times reported as fact the false claim that there is a debate among respected academics regarding whether the Jewish temples were actually located on the Temple Mount.

In other words, the Times unabashedly participated in the Palestinian project of rewriting history in a manner that erases Jewish history from the Jewish homeland.

Netanyahu recognizes that the media have sided with the Palestinians in their war to destroy Israel through a mix of terror and propaganda.

He knows that the only stories they will report on are stories with an anti-Israel angle. It is reasonable then to assume that he decided to use their embrace of every possible angle of attack as a means to get the truth out about the nature of the war.

By exaggerating Husseini’s importance in the Holocaust, Netanyahu gave the media a means of attacking him. But by doing so, he forced the Times to report on the Palestinians’ founding father’s role in destroying European Jewry and his desire to carry out the Final Solution in the Middle East. They would have ignored the issue if Netanyahu had not exaggerated his actual role.

Due to his “gaffe,” every Western media outlet reported on Husseini’s actions. Some even mentioned that in his PhD dissertation, current Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said the Holocaust was both a myth and a joint Zionist-Nazi project. For most Westerners, this is the first they’ve heard of the fact that the Palestinian’s George Washington was a Nazi war criminal.

Like I said, crazy as a fox.

There is Nothing to Negotiate

October 22, 2015

There is Nothing to Negotiate, American ThinkerDan Calic, October 21, 2015

(But shouldn’t Israel commit suicide to satisfy Abbas, the US, the EU, the UN and others? It would be the warm and fuzzy thing to do. — DM)

Some hard realities need to be faced about the Middle East “peace process.” The US, EU, UN and others have said the “settlements” are an obstacle to peace. The Arabs point to the “occupation.”

However, neither of these are the core issue…. and frankly, they never have been. Why? Keep in mind there was no “occupation” or “settlements” in 1948 when the surrounding Arab nations attacked the fledgling Jewish nation one day after declaring independence.

Moreover, where were settlements or occupation in 1967?

So if it isn’t the “occupation,” or “settlements,” what is the real issue? While many consider these to be legitimate issues, the Arabs are using them as a deliberate smokescreen.

The core issue is the Muslim’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It’s as simple as that. This is the main reason why the first attempt at a two-state solution (the 1947 UN partition plan) was not successful. The Muslims would not allow a Jewish state on land which they consider theirs. Its size or borders didn’t matter. It was, and remains, its mere existence.

Case in point: in 2000 when Yasser Arafat met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak under the auspicious of President Bill Clinton at Camp David ll, the real Muslim goal became evident.

During those discussions Barak made an unprecedented offer to Arafat. He was willing to turn over 95% of Judea/Samaria, commonly called the “West Bank.” He okayed the return of many of the so-called “refugees” and offered compensation for others. He was willing to split Israel in two by virtue of a contiguous road between Judea/Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

Plus, he offered to divide Jerusalem, which included handing most of the Old City over to the Muslims.

President Clinton felt Barak went above and beyond his expectations in an effort to achieve a breakthrough in the decades old conflict. Yet in the end, Arafat rejected it, without even making a counter offer. Why? An agreement would require compromise, which Muslims viewed as giving in to American demands. From their point of view this was (and remains) unacceptable, thus his rejection of the offer.

President Clinton was furious with Arafat, telling him “I am a failure and you have made me one.”

These days, with Arafat long gone, Mahmoud Abbas is in charge of the PA and considered by the U.S., EU, and others to be “sincere” and a “moderate.” However, very little has changed since the days of Arafat.

In some respect things have worsened. For example Abbas has repeatedly said he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This in spite of Israel’s repeated willingness to recognize ‘Palestine’ as a state, side by side with Israel.

Abbas’s refusal to accept the Jewish state of Israel is reflective of some longstanding Muslim views.

For example-

  • Muslim thinking has always been once they have controlled someplace, it’s considered theirs forever. It doesn’t matter if they get defeated in war. They view anyone in control of “their” land as “occupiers,” who need to be driven out or destroyed. To back away from this position is seen as compromise, which is unacceptable in Muslim thinking for at least two reasons.
  • Compromise is seen as weakness. Weakness is intolerable in their culture. Keep in mind the Saudi flag contains the official credo of Islam (“there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger”) which includes the image of a sword. The clear inference being they prefer to die upholding their beliefs than live by compromise.
  • Plus, compromise, from a fundamentalist perspective is also viewed as breaking a foundational tenet of the faith. Breaking a tenet of the faith is considered blasphemy, which is punishable by death in Islam.

Mahmoud Abbas has acted in accordance with these views. When one understands how Muslim’s view anyone in control of land they consider theirs, you understand his actions. It also becomes clear the conflict is not about borders. The Jews are seen as “occupiers” of Muslim land. A Jewish state has no right to exist on “Muslim” land.

If there is any doubt of this take a look at the charters of the PLO, Hamas, or Fatah, which is the party Mahmoud Abbas is president of. Moreover, all three, the PLO, Hamas, and Fatah by virtue of their emblems leave no doubt their goal is not a two-state solution. Each emblem shows only one state — Palestine, covering all of Israel. The goal of each group is the complete elimination of Israel. Every inch of land which makes up Israel today is considered “occupied Palestine.”

Why aren’t the voices criticizing Israel for “settlement” activity also demanding the charter of Abbas’s party reflect peaceful co-existence with Israel, instead of its destruction?

In order for a two-state solution to be achieved negotiations are required. Negotiations by their very nature require compromise. How is Israel supposed to negotiate when its very existence is considered unacceptable?

There is nothing to negotiate.


An Islamist Intifada

October 18, 2015

An Islamist Intifada, American ThinkerJonathan F. Keiler, October 18, 2015

The history of phony Palestinian Arab nationalism inevitably has led back to this point, revealing the violence for what it is: a war against Jews, and ultimately against anybody else who refuses to submit.


The current Palestinian Arab “uprising” against Israel appears to be a mostly Islamist offensive, not different in any significant ideological way from radical Islamist movements like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezb’allah.  The idea that it is motivated by Israeli policies, the stalled “peace process,” or Palestinian Arab nationalism is nothing but propaganda, and the laziness and bias of the international press and political classes.

The violence is motivated by the Palestinian Authority’s deliberate agitation, which knowingly taps into the Arab masses deep-seated hatred of Jews and other infidels.  The Authority has a parochial interest in diverting the attention of the masses from its own corruption and incompetence.  It also wants to insulate itself against its Hamas rival in Gaza, which correctly sees the Authority for the hapless and rotten organization it is and would replace it with an incompetent and corrupt Islamist entity in the West Bank.

What neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas wants is independence, having rejected every opportunity to create a viable Palestinian Arab state.  The Authority, like all Palestinian Arab leadership since the 1930s, has rejected every opportunity to create a Palestinian state, despite claiming that purpose.  Correspondingly, Gaza is already a wholly independent Palestinian territory, but Hamas also laughably still claims it is “occupied” by Israel.  This patently idiotic assertion is nonetheless accepted as truth by the international left, many governments, and most likely the current occupant of the White House.

Still, Palestinian Arabs in the recent past have consistently played the nationalist card.  The first and second Palestinian intifadas could be characterized as nationalist uprisings, at least to the extent that the stated motivations of Arab leadership and the masses was to end Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  The name of the uprisings, “intifada,” or “shaking off” in Arabic, suggested as much.  Predictably, though the Palestinian Arabs succeeded in ending the occupations of Gaza and most of the West Bank, they rejected the fruits of victory.

The uprisings demonstrated the disingenuous nature of Palestinian nationalism.  They furthered supposed Palestinian Arab national aspirations by intensifying international support of Palestinian goals and winning Israeli territorial concessions, but because of Palestinian disinterest in an actual state, these gains have led nowhere.

The result of the first intifada was the Oslo Accords, the withdrawal of the Israeli military from most populated parts of the West Bank, and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.  If the Palestinian Arabs had any real interest in ending the conflict with Israel and establishing a real national polity, this could have led to a state in the West Bank and Gaza.  However, when Israel offered Yasser Arafat just that, accompanied by further Israeli territorial concessions, he rejected the offer and instead launched another intifada.

The second intifada was manufactured by Arafat, and also erupted over false claims of an Israeli violation of Arab sensitivities on the Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.  But with Arafat’s guidance, it quickly adopted the rhetoric of nationalist occupation.  The extreme violence of the second intifada, which cost Israel almost ten times the losses of the first intifada, also resulted in a tangible gain for the Palestinian Arabs: the abandonment of Israeli communities in Gaza and the Israeli military’s full retreat from that enclave.  When the Israelis departed, they intentionally left behind valuable infrastructure that the Palestinians could have used to build their nation.  In addition, the international community lavished aid and investment on the newly independent territory, which might have tried to transform itself into an Arab Singapore.

But again, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the opportunity.   They destroyed the abandoned Israeli infrastructure in typical self-destructive fits of “rage,” embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of international aid, and launched a series of pathetic military offensives against Israel, designed to make their own people suffer.

Under Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas (who remains in charge of the Palestinian Authority in the tenth year of a four-year term), and later under Hamas (after they kicked Abbas and his Fatah Party out), the Palestinians have ludicrously continued to claim that Gaza is occupied.

What is most interesting about the current uprising is that the Palestinians appear to have mostly abandoned any pretense of fighting for a state, and instead have now fully joined the Islamist wave sweeping the Middle East.  Other than Abbas’s posturing, the violence is relatively leaderless, at least in terms of traditional Palestinian Arab political organizations, and driven by Islamist youth.  This uprising, like the second intifada, was instigated by Abbas’s repeated lies about Israeli actions and intentions regarding holy sites in Jerusalem.  But it is persisting in that vein, as radicalized Palestinian Islamists attack Jews in the name of protecting Islam.

Thus, the current violence is less of a piece with the first and second intifadas as it is with the Arab revolts in Mandated Palestine during the 1930s.  Those uprisings were religious, based also on supposed threats posed to Islamic holy sites, with little nationalist motivation.  That’s because in the 1930s there was no Palestinian national movement, there being no such thing as a Palestinian historically, ethnically, or culturally.  To the extent there was any national element to the revolts, it was of the pan-Arab variety – a movement that has proven to be as chimeric as Palestinian nationalism.

In theory, the religious nature of this revolt should put “Palestine’s” many supporters in the West in a more difficult position.  The basis of Western support of Palestine, from the BDS movement to formal recognition to the “peace process,” has been the idea that the conflict between Israel and the Arabs is nationalist, not religious.  As a national conflict, the left and liberal Western governments take the side of the “indigenous” people (Palestinian Arabs), as opposed to the colonial occupiers (Israelis).  But with Palestinians adopting the ideas of the most radical Islamists, this ought to challenge that narrative.  And it reflects reality, because from the 1930s until today, there never has been an authentic Palestinian national movement, as opposed to a basically Islamist desire to rid the Middle East of its only non-Islamic polity.

Hamas has always been an assertively an Islamist organization, openly embracing terror; hostage-taking; public executions of infidels and heretics; and tyranny, both political and religious.  But it also claims to want to vindicate Palestinian national aspirations, which allows some governments and leftists in general to ignore Hamas’s Islamist nature and accept its partial self-depiction as a “resistance movement” to (nonexistent) Israeli occupation.   Likewise, Hezb’allah, the Shia-Islamist terror organization, also self-depicts as a resistance movement to nonexistent Israel occupation (Israel having totally quit Lebanon over 15 years ago).  This nationalist cover allows Western leftist politicians like Jeremy Corbyn (Britain’s new Labor leader) to embrace these groups .

It has also allowed Western leaders like President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to divorce the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict from the larger war on terror.  They prefer to depict it as a local nationalist phenomenon, in which Israeli occupation – rather than Jews simply trying to live as Jews – drives Arab terror.  So far, true to form, the White House and State Department are sticking with that story with the current violence, blaming Israel and the Palestinian Arabs equally, and willfully ignoring the facts of Abbas’s incitement and the Islamist motivations of Arab murderers.

The history of phony Palestinian Arab nationalism inevitably has led back to this point, revealing the violence for what it is: a war against Jews, and ultimately against anybody else who refuses to submit.