On college campuses and beyond, support for the Palestinians has been portrayed as a human rights campaign. While the anti-Semitic BDS movement is, according to its founders and leaders, a crusade to make Israel disappear, it has attracted many naïve supporters who believe ostracizing Israel will somehow help the Palestinians achieve independence. BDS has been an unmitigated failure, but it has shielded the Palestinian Authority and Hamas from criticism for their abuses of human rights.
Sadly, the people who loudly proclaim their concern for the Palestinians are silent when it comes to the way Palestinians treat each other. The “occupation” imposes limitations on the freedom of Palestinians, but Israelis have no responsibility for the denial of civil rights by the men (and they are all men) who rule over roughly 98 percent of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.
Let’s start with freedom of speech and assembly. No one can demonstrate or speak out against the leaders of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. This may be the most serious – and ignored — obstacle to peace. For decades, the irredentism of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas has led the Palestinian people to ruin. Multiple opportunities for statehood have been squandered because of their unwillingness to compromise and the people have no recourse. The PA is a dictatorship, which does not tolerate dissent. Just last week, the Palestinian police dispersed demonstrations in Ramallah and Bethlehem against the prosecution of five wanted criminals. The one election held in the territories was concerned more with the corruption of Fatah than independence and, to ensure his continued autocratic rule, Abbas has refused to hold another election for more than a decade. Perhaps, if the people felt strongly enough about peace they would revolt against their leaders rather than the Israelis, but they have been content up until now to blame the Jews for their plight.
Source: for MORE
During the election campaign and after his inauguration, President Donald Trump said several times that he wants to close a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. The longer the list of failed U.S. attempts over the decades, the more alluring this challenge apparently becomes. The prospects for enduring acclaim in the event of success seem particularly enticing for narcissistic politicians.
In March 2017, only two months after the inauguration and before all the positions in the defense and foreign policy establishment had been filled, Jason Greenblatt, President Trump’s special representative for international negotiations, was sent to Jerusalem and Ramallah to test the waters. The mission signals unwarranted eagerness.
While the new American administration seems genuinely interested in getting results, its determination to pursue a comprehensive deal is not clear.
Will Trump emulate the “messianic” approach of former US Secretary of State John Kerry? Will the US settle, after an undetermined period, for a “process” only, once it realizes there is no deal in the cards? Will the US finally concur with the Israeli consensus that there is no peace partner in Ramallah and/or in Gaza?
Source: for MORE
President Trump raised eyebrows when he mentioned the possibility of a one state solution. The context was ambiguous and no one can know for sure what message he was intending to convey. One possibility is that he was telling the Palestinian leadership that if they want a two state solution, they have to do something. They have to come to the negotiating table with the Israelis and make the kinds of painful sacrifices that will be required from both sides for a peaceful resolution to be achieved. Put most directly, the Palestinians must earn the right to a state. They are not simply entitled to statehood, especially since their leaders missed so many opportunities over the years to secure a state. As Abba Eban once put it: “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
It began back in the 1930s, when Great Britain established the Peale Commission which was tasked to recommend a solution to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in mandatory Palestine. It recommended a two state solution with a tiny noncontiguous Jewish state alongside a large Arab state. The Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted this sliver of a state; the Palestinian leadership rejected the deal, saying they wanted there to be no Jewish state more than they wanted a state of their own.
In 1947, the United Nations partitioned mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for a Jewish state; the other for an Arab state. The Jews declared statehood on 1948; all the surrounding Arab countries joined the local Arab population in attacking the new state of Israel and killing one percent of its citizens, but Israel survived.
In 1967, Egypt and Syria were planning to attack and destroy Israel, but Israel preempted and won a decisive victory, capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai. Israel offered to return captured areas in exchange for peace, but the Arabs met with Palestinian leaders in Khartoum and issued their three infamous “no’s”: no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation.
In 2000-2001 and again in 2008, Israel made generous peace offers that would have established a demilitarized Palestinian state, but these offers were not accepted. And for the past several years, the current Israeli government has offered to sit down and negotiate a two state solution with no pre-conditions– not even advanced recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. The Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate.
Source: for MORE
A novelist, a journalist and a university professor walk into a bar. Sounds like a joke, but it stops being funny when these three figures are the latest victims of the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) crackdown on public freedoms, above all, freedom of expression.
The crackdown is yet more proof of the violent intolerance that the Western-funded PA has long shown its critics.
It is also a sad reminder that more than two decades after the foundation of the PA, Palestinians are as far from democracy as ever. In fact, the Palestinians seem to be marching in the opposite direction — towards establishing a regime that is remarkably reminiscent of the despotic and corrupt Arab and Islamic governments.
PA officials like to boast that Palestinians living under their rule in the West Bank enjoy a great deal of freedom of expression, especially compared to the situation under Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, a good look at the actions of the PA and its various security branches shows that they are not much different than those enforced by Hamas.
Sometimes it even seems as if the PA and Hamas are competing to see which one of them can most successfully silence critics and cracks down on journalists. This is the sad reality in which Palestinians living under the rule of these two parties have found themselves.
Source: for MORE
There are iron rules of warfare. One of the most basic rules is that you have to know your enemy. If you do not know your enemy, or worse, if you refuse to act on your knowledge of him, you will lose your war against him.
This basic truth appears to have eluded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This week we have been beset by the bizarre and sudden appearance of Jason Greenblatt, President Donald Trump’s negotiations chief.
Greenblatt’s mission is apparently to reinstate the mordant peace process between Israel and the PLO.
The peace process that Greenblatt is here to reincarnate died 17 years ago.
In 2000, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat killed the peace process when he initiated a massive terrorist war against Israel, right after he rejected peace and Palestinian statehood at the Camp David peace conference.
In rejecting peace, the architect of modern terrorism made clear that his claim seven years earlier that he was willing to reach a compromise with Israel, based on partition of the Land of Israel between a Jewish and an Arab state, was a lie. As the nationalist camp had warned at the time and since, the PLO was not remotely interested either in statehood or in peace. Arafat’s willingness to engage Israel in negotiations that led to its transfer of security and civil control over Gaza and the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria to the PLO was simply another means to the only end the PLO ever contemplated. It was a means of weakening Israel as a step toward achieving the PLO’s ultimate goal of destroying the Jewish state.
Source: for MORE
After shutting down the official page of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction this week, Facebook not only reinstated it several hours later, but “apologized for the mistake,” the Saudi-owned pan Arab news outlet Al Arabiya reported, a day before arguments in a billion-dollar suit against the social media giant were being heard in the Brooklyn District Court.
According to the report, a Facebook spokesperson stated: “The page was removed in error and restored as soon as we were able to investigate…”
One source involved in complaints to the social media platform told The Algemeiner that though the page indeed is up and running again, “It’s doubtful that Facebook apologized. Facebook doesn’t apologize.”
The ongoing upsurge of antisemitic incidents across the US — including JCC bomb threats, cemetery desecrations and a bullet fired…
The post that sparked the removal of the page was a photo of the late PLO chief Yasser Arafat holding a weapon and standing next to current Fatah Deputy Chairman Mahmoud Al-Aloul. However, Itamar Marcus — founder and president of the Jerusalem-based research organization Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) — told The Algemeiner, “PMW has documented and reported on hundreds of examples of explicit hate and terror-promotion on the official Fatah Facebook page, including more than 130 posts in 2016 alone glorifying terrorists and their attacks. We have presented this evidence in the US Congress and parliaments around the world, including on Tuesday in the EU, and there is total agreement that this site has been operating like that of a terror organization.”
Source: for MORE