A revelation of Palestinian diplomatic tactics came to light recently in the form of a diplomatic response to an article that opposed the formal acceptance of a Palestinian state, at least at this time.
In an important article last July, titled “The Case against Recognition of Palestine,” the Director of the British Israel Communications and Research Centre, Professor Alan Johnson, argued that the Australian Labour Party’s proposal to recognize the so-called State of Palestine would be a grave error that would harm the ALP itself. Johnson made a reasoned and informed plea for ALP members to reject the motion, reminding the public that Israel has always been open-handed in its offers of peace, unlike the Palestinians, who have consistently refused to accept even the most generous proposals. It is important to note that Johnson, an authoritative writer and speaker, with a longstanding reputation as a political theorist, is a moderate left-winger and British Labour Party member, a former Trotskyite. In other words, he would seem to be the last person to argue Israel’s case and oppose Palestinian statehood.
Rather than respond to Johnson’s scholarly arguments by issuing a serious piece by a pro-Palestinian academic of similar stature, the journal published just one week later a diatribe by a Palestinian diplomat named Ali Kazak, titled “Justice, not Deceit, will achieve Peace.”
Kazak is probably the leading Palestinian lobbyist in Australia, (where he moved in 1970, after being raised in Syria). He set up the Palestine Information Office (later the General Palestinian Delegation), recognized by the Australian government, and has gone on to obtain recognition in New Zealand. He is treated as the Palestinian ambassador in several Pacific states such as Vanuatu. He writes copiously for the Australian press in English and Arabic, and for Arabic-language papers across the globe.
Kazak may be little known outside his region, but his response to Alan Johnson is not a presentation of one man’s opinions; it is an official document that one may take as a formal statement of Palestinian views. As such, it merits close analysis.
The rumor mill has once again sounded the warning that France will be presenting a motion to the Security Council condemning Israel as an occupier of the lands which were liberated from Jordanian occupation in the Six Day War in June of 1967. The formation of the homeland for the Jewish people came in three easy to understand steps. The first step was the proposal for the lands to be divided into one state for the Jews and a second Arab Palestinian state complimenting the already existing Arab Palestinian state cut from the British Mandate lands called Jordan, originally Transjordan. The San Remo Conference put forth that the lands turned over to British control under the title of British Mandate Lands was for the formation of the Jewish state. This meant that all of the Mandate lands under British control were to form the Jewish state. While the British were…
View original post 2,623 more words
The “bombshell” that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatened he was going to drop on the United Nations during his speech did not materialize.
This bombshell turned out to be a planned announcement of a Palestinian state “under Israeli occupation.”
If one person can stand at the podium of the UN and unilaterally declare a state, then I advise the leader of the Kurds, the Catalans, the Druze and any other ethnic groups that feel entitled to have their independence to make their way to the building and do so.
Apparently the U.S. Administration advised Abbas against the announcement, and Abbas backed down.