P.A. has lost all its meaning — Abbas

Israel/PalestineMiddle East
on 60 Comments

The Times of Israel has posted President Abbas’s letter to Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s difficult to read for the degree of humiliation it expresses. Key excerpt: 

Mr. Prime Minister

Our historic Peace Proposal is still waiting for an answer from Israel.
• We agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine-on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.
• The establishment of independent Palestinian State that can live side-by-side with the State of Israel in peace and security on the borders of 1967 with mutually agreed swaps equal in size and value.
• Security will be guaranteed by a third party accepted by both, to be deployed on the Palestinian side.
• A just and agreed resolution for the refugees’ problem as specified in the Arab Peace Initiative.
• Jerusalem will serve as a capital of two States. East Jerusalem capital of Palestine. West Jerusalem capital of Israel. Jerusalem as an open city can be the symbol of peace.

Mr. Prime Minister,

Twenty years ago, we concluded with Israel an agreement under international auspices which was intended to take the Palestinian people from occupation to independence. Now, as a result of actions taken by successive Israeli governments, the Palestinian National Authority no longer has any authority, and no meaningful jurisdiction in the political, economic, social, territorial and security spheres. In other words, the P.A. lost its reason d’être.

In recognition of the above and in furtherance of the peace process and the agreements we signed with Israel, which were premised on international legitimacy, international law, and internationally-recognized terms of reference, we call on the Government of Israel to do the following:

1- Accept the two-state solution on the 1967 borders with possible minor and mutually agreed upon land swaps of equal size and value;
2- Stop all settlement activities, including in East Jerusalem;
3- Release all prisoners, in particular those imprisoned prior to the end of 1994; and
4- Revoke all decisions taken since 2000 which undermine agreements signed between Israel and the PLO.

Should the Government of Israel refuse to honor these above-referenced obligations, we will seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to the powers and responsibilities of Israel as occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory.
For the Palestinian Authority—now stripped of all meaningful authority—cannot continue to honor agreements while Israel refuses to even acknowledge its commitments. The P.A. is no longer as was agreed and this situation cannot continue.

Mr. Prime Minister

I strongly believe that both our peoples yearn for peace. As leaders, it’s our historic task to make it happen. Let’s not fail our peoples.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

60 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    April 16, 2012, 10:16 am

    Sad that this important statement was not made earlier. Humiliating? Merely a statement of fact. Also close to what (prisoner) Barghouti called for: an end to cooperation with Israel. Also suggests a call on the (vastly unwilling to act) international community to do what? to act! to enforce the IHL: “we will seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to the powers and responsibilities of Israel as occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory.”

    In fact, it is time for a more important step — reconstitution, if still possible, of PLO LOCATED OUTSIDE OPTs and funded independent (so far as possible) of USA, Israel.

    • seafoid
      April 16, 2012, 2:09 pm

      The Palestinians were right to wait until Israel killed the 2 SS.
      Israel never wanted peace. Now they can prove it.

  2. FreddyV
    April 16, 2012, 10:45 am

    Sounds like Abbas is taking Yossi Beilin’s advice.

    http://972mag.com/the-man-who-invented-the-pa-calls-to-shut-it-down/40218/

    • Hostage
      April 16, 2012, 12:45 pm

      Sounds like Abbas is taking Yossi Beilin’s advice.

      No, Beilin has never advocated that Abbas seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to Israel in all of the occupied Palestinian territory.

  3. Les
    April 16, 2012, 11:33 am

    If he had the nerve to run for office Abbas could not even be elected dog catcher.

    • Matt Giwer
      April 16, 2012, 1:59 pm

      He lost the last election. Hamas won. Abbas is the leader of the coup that ousted the winner.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2012, 3:22 am

        He lost the last election. Hamas won. Abbas is the leader of the coup that ousted the winner.

        It was Hamas that launched what they described as a preemptive coup. Abbas was elected to the Presidency by 60 per cent of the vote. Hamas never fielded any candidate for that office. The fact is that the electoral mandates of both governing factions have long-since expired and that Hamas might have trouble getting re-elected these days, e.g. Hamas profits from Israel’s Gaza blockade http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0817/p09s01-wome.html

      • Matt Giwer
        April 17, 2012, 12:14 pm

        How can the winners stage a coup?

        Were you trying to say the winners tried to hold the offices to which they were elected?

        Looks like democracy in action to me.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2012, 4:26 pm

        How can the winners stage a coup?

        Winning a majority of seats in the PLC did not give Hamas the right to attack the regular PA security forces or overthrow the other branches of government, including the President.

        Were you trying to say the winners tried to hold the offices to which they were elected?

        No. The fact that one of our political parties might obtain a majority of seats in the Congress does not give it the right to form its own independent militia and attack the regular armed forces under the day to day operational control of the DoD and the President.

      • lysias
        April 17, 2012, 5:27 pm

        Here is how Wikipedia describes the 2005 “election” that made Abbas president:

        With Israeli forces arresting and restricting the movement of other candidates, Hamas’ boycott of the election, and his campaign being given 94% of the Palestinian electoral campaign coverage on TV, Abbas’ election was virtually ensured,[19] and on 9 January Abbas was elected with 62% of the vote as President of the Palestinian National Authority.

        Elsewhere in the article, Wikipedia says:

        Elected to serve until 9 January 2009, he [Abbas] unilaterally extended his term for another year and continues in office even after that second deadline expired.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2012, 7:44 pm

        lysias the report actually criticized the Hamas boycott for possibly preventing voters from voicing their preference. It also blamed the Israeli authorities for creating the majority of problems, which occurred in East Jerusalem. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jimbo Wales hasbara echo chamber failed to summarize the report’s principle conclusion:
        Conclusions
        With the exception of East Jerusalem, no major systemic violations were reported. In this regard, ICDS along with other international observers including the European Union and the National Democratic Institute considered the 2005 Palestinian presidential elections a victory for democracy. http://web.archive.org/web/20100430065639/http://www.eicds.org/english/activities/pressreleases/05/monitoringpalestine.htm

        Elected to serve until 9 January 2009, he [Abbas] unilaterally extended his term for another year and continues in office even after that second deadline expired.

        So what? There was a civil war and the insurgents unilaterally extended their terms too. I subscribe to the views expressed by Mouin Rabbani on the subject:
        Q: How do you respond to those who argue that the current Palestinian leadership lacks legitimacy, either because their electoral terms have expired or because of the blurring of the lines between the PA and the PLO?
        A: Sure, if you look at it objectively, there is no legitimate Palestinian leadership, and that’s as true as it is for the government in Gaza as it is for the government in Ramallah. . . . Now does that mean that any Palestinian holding office is illegitimate and that anything they do is illegitimate? No. That would be going to the other extreme.
        link to maannews.net

        The Wikipedia article doesn’t spell-out the role of the PLO. Abbas was re-elected Chairman of the PLO in 2009. The PA is on the bottom of the Palestinian political food chain. The PLO Executive and Central Committees still retain the power, under the terms of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine to form and establish provisional governments; to conduct votes of confidence regarding provisional governments; to conduct foreign relations on behalf of the provisional government; and to act as sole representative of the Palestinian people “until such time as the Palestinian people exercises full sovereignty over the land of Palestine”. In other words, until there isn’t any interim government (aka the PA) anymore.

        The 2003 Basic Law was ratified and promulgated as law by Abbas acting in his capacity as the President of the PLO Executive Committee (NOT the President of the PA). It was ratified on the basis of those explicit legal understandings which were spelled-out in the preamble. It explained that the PA is only an interim body tasked to commence the organization and establishment of a sound, democratic and legislative life in Palestine and that it remains a creature of the PLO and ultimately depends upon the PLO for its own legitimacy:

        At the same time, the enactment and ratification of this law by the Legislative Council does spring from the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the sole and legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinian people.

        link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

  4. seafoid
    April 16, 2012, 1:02 pm

    I don’t think it’s humiliating. Israel has made decisions and will have to live with the consequences. I bought a French magazine- Geo histoire- and the issue was devoted to the history of the French in Algeria. There came a time for the French where it was too late to negotiate . Israel is headed in the same direction.

    “I strongly believe that both our peoples yearn for peace” Maybe the Israelis do but they never show it.

  5. libra
    April 16, 2012, 1:39 pm

    Humiliation? Absolutely not. If the Palestinian leadership carry through with this then they will have stopped the endless humiliation of the “peace process” and finally taken control by offering the Israeli’s a choice – a “Jewish state” on the 1967 borders or a single state. If the outcome is a single state then no one will be able to blame the Palestinians for destroying “the Jewish state”, Israel will have brought it upon itself through its greed and intransigence.

    • Mayhem
      April 16, 2012, 8:06 pm

      @libra: There is no mention in Abbas’ letter saying Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state.

      • libra
        April 16, 2012, 8:53 pm

        Mayhem: “There is no mention in Abbas’ letter saying Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state.”

        No, why would he use that language? But I think it is implicit in the offer of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders if you read the words carefully. Certainly the alternative option of a single state will not be a “Jewish state”. If there wasn’t this fundamental difference, there would be no real choice for the Israelis to make.

        As a matter of interest, if those were the two options which would you choose?

      • Mayhem
        April 16, 2012, 10:46 pm

        No, why would he use that language?

        Because the majority of the Israeli population might like to hear it. Because it would mean that Hamas might be prepared to abrogate its charter to be rid of Israel.  Also seems fair enough if the Palestinian side is shoving a raft of demands in Netanyahu’s face that he ask for something in exchange.
        IMHO the only possible solution would be the 2SS.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2012, 8:49 am

        “Because the majority of the Israeli population might like to hear it.”

        Why should Abbas give a damn what a country of ethnic cleansers and judeo-fascists “might like to hear.” I’m sure the majority of the Palestinian population might like to hear that the Israelis will remove their boot from the Palestinians’ neck and might like to hear that the Israelis will stop slaughtering Palestinian men, women and children. Do you think that the lunatic in the Israeli PM’s office is going to address that?

        “Because it would mean that Hamas might be prepared to abrogate its charter to be rid of Israel.”

        And Israel has had 40 years to permit the establishment of a true Palestinian state, but has refused to even take the first, necessary steps. Who the hell do they think they are in expecting those they oppress for generations to kiss their ass? God, the nerve of these people is astounding.

        “Also seems fair enough if the Palestinian side is shoving a raft of demands in Netanyahu’s face that he ask for something in exchange.”

        Yeah, like letting the foreign invaders and their offspring being able to keep 78% of someone else’s land isn’t enough in exhange.

      • Miss Costello
        April 17, 2012, 3:35 pm

        Spot on!

      • eljay
        April 16, 2012, 9:41 pm

        >> There is no mention in Abbas’ letter saying Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state.

        Nor should there be. It’s not Abbas’ – or anyone’s – place to “entitle” a state to be religion-supremacist.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 16, 2012, 9:47 pm

        “There is no mention in Abbas’ letter saying Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state.”

        In what way is it up to Abbas to decide what label Israel gives itself?? It can call itself whatever meaningless label it wants.

      • Matt Giwer
        April 17, 2012, 12:31 am

        Anyone who says Israel is a jewish state must in their heart of hearts truly hate Jews. The claim of being jewish brands all Jews with the the political actions of Israel.

        My neighbor is a Jew. Should I damn him for HIS totalitarian dictatorship in the West Bank and his war on Gaza?

        Of course not. But my (imaginary) neighbor is an idiot for not damning Israel for implicating him in its tyrannical military dictatorship. People were hanged at Nuremberg for this kind of crap.

      • yourstruly
        April 17, 2012, 8:42 am

        well stated & there are many jews (me, for one) who agree with you.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2012, 4:36 am

        @libra: There is no mention in Abbas’ letter saying Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state.

        The Palestine Papers highlighted the fact that demanding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a form of incitement prohibited under the terms of the Quartet Road Map:

        …Then Obama brought up incitement. . . .We should prepare for them a file on who is actually inciting. The demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is incitement. [To the NSU] Look very carefully at incitement. Bring as much evidence as possible on Israeli incitement against us, including legislation, speeches, books …

        See “Meeting Minutes: Saeb Erekat with (PLO) Negotiations Support Unit on US Meetings” link to transparency.aljazeera.net June 2, 2009

        Russia subsequently vetoed US attempts to modify the terms of reference to include that as a Quartet requirement. See Haaretz: Russia’s refusal to refer to Israel as a “Jewish state” leads to failure of Quartet meeting http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/europe/2621-haaretz-russias-refusal-to-refer-to-israel-as-a-qjewish-stateq-leads-to-failure-of-quartet-meeting

  6. Eleanor Kilroy
    April 16, 2012, 2:22 pm

    “Should the Government of Israel refuse to honor these above-referenced obligations, we will seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to the powers and responsibilities of Israel as occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory.”

    What is he waiting for?

    • Hostage
      April 17, 2012, 4:17 am

      What is he waiting for?

      The Secretary General of the UN asked Abbas to abandon any further action on his statehood bid after the US defunded UNESCO. The Secretary General is part of one of the major organs of the UN, the Secretariat. After the UNESCO vote, he has no choice other than to accept treaty instruments from Palestine, like every other State. If he or the UN Treaty Organization extend the rights reserved for a State to Palestine, they risk loosing their funding from the US government.

      The Palestinian mission to the UN has an annual ritual where they co-sponsor draft resolutions in the General Assembly calling on the government of Switzerland to reconvene the Diplomatic Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions; calling on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law; and demanding that the Security Council take action on the outstanding agenda of items that have been addressed by the on-going 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly – “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. http://www.un.org/en/ga/sessions/emergency10th.shtml

      Everyone pretends that they might grudgingly fulfill their treaty obligations towards Palestine in-line with the specific responsibilities outlined in the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion, while the US and EU claim that a solution can’t be imposed from the outside and that enforcement of international law would only disrupt and delay the delicate “peace process”.

      The mainstream media just doesn’t cover all of this very well. The US and EU have been blocking action on the Advisory Opinion and dozens of fact finding mission reports concerning war crimesand crimes against humanity. They have also been blocking the criminal complaint that Palestine filed with the ICC and resisting efforts to reconvene the Geneva Conference of High Contracting Parties to take action on the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion. For example, when Palestine asked for membership in the UN, the US promised to veto the application and lobbied the other members of the Security Council to withhold support. The ICC Prosecutor said that Palestine could accept the Court’s jurisdiction if it were upgraded to the status of an observer state. The French government reacted with its own plan to support an upgrade to Palestine’s observer status, but only on condition that it withdraw its existing criminal complaint against Israel in the ICC, e.g. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/abbas-to-seek-full-un-recognition-despite-western-pressure-1.386142

    • Miss Costello
      April 17, 2012, 3:52 pm

      “What is he waiting for?”

      God appearing to him in a dream, giving the go ahead. Who could argue with that?

  7. seafoid
    April 16, 2012, 4:36 pm

    This is a good portrait of ‘Abbas

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3be92ce-e481-11e0-92a3-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1sEngnAYc

    “Abbas is known as the architect of the Oslo peace accords and the man who preached diplomacy and non-violence to the Palestinians earlier, and more fervently, than anyone else. Arafat famously declared in front of the UN that he held an olive branch in one hand, and a gun in the other. Mr Abbas pointedly said this month he was travelling to New York with only the olive branch.”

    Israel shafted itself really

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 17, 2012, 12:10 pm

      The problem with the FT article is the assumption that there is some set of words and actions which the Palestinians could employ which will unlock the key to the Israelis. There isn’t. Israel is simply an evil force which should be destroyed and replaced with something which respects the equality and full rights of all the people who are now in the land of Palestine. The sooner, the better.

  8. Mayhem
    April 16, 2012, 7:19 pm

    You strive for decades and decades to get rid of Israel by every means you can muster. You offer a shit deal loaded with preconditions disguised as obligations. You tell Israel that it has to release all prisoners, many of whom are cold-blooded murderers. You avoid recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. You whinge about the fact that the shoddy organization that you run has identity problems. You don’t mention whether your partner in crime Hamas is going along with the charade.

    And after all this Israel is supposed to say thank you very much and relent under the threat of you summoning the full force of international law.

    • dbroncos
      April 16, 2012, 10:54 pm

      I don’t “avoid recognition of Israel as a Jewish state”. I reject it entirely, without qualifications. I don’t want Israel to be a Jewish state any more than I want the US to be the United White States of America. I’d like to see Israel transformed into something better: a state with equality under the law for all the people who live there. I wouldn’t complain about devoting some of my tax dollars to making this dream a reality. However, I will continue to complain about my government using my tax dollars to strangle the Palestinian nation in the service of a construct as absurd and bigoted as the Jewish state.

    • sardelapasti
      April 17, 2012, 1:34 am

      Spoken like what every Zionist propagandist is: a shameless criminal. The illegal Zionist entity and its illegitimate racial supremacist state should of course say thank you for any offering, even for a single square foot of land, offered in compromise by the owners of the land.

    • Hostage
      April 17, 2012, 4:56 am

      You tell Israel that it has to release all prisoners, many of whom are cold-blooded murderers. . . . And after all this Israel is supposed to say thank you very much and relent under the threat of you summoning the full force of international law.

      If it’s any comfort to you, the subject of amnesty is very controversial in international criminal law. There are plenty of Israelis who belong in jail. There is no statute of limitations that can prevent that from eventually happening to many of your current or former officials and soldiers, whether they choose to make peace or not.

    • Mooser
      April 17, 2012, 12:43 pm

      “You avoid recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.”

      But over on another thread, “wiseman” just told us that Israel is %15-30 atheist, and about %90 secular. Sounds like most anywhere else. So where is the Jewish part? I would not recognise those atheists and seculars as Jews! And neither should Israel. Are there no standards anymore? Any atheist or secular can call him or herself a Jew?

      • Mayhem
        April 17, 2012, 7:39 pm

        @mooser: You obviously don’t know what it means to be Jewish. Being Jewish is a lineage that comes from having a Jewish mother. It has nothing to do with religion per se.
        The primary reason for making Israel a Jewish state is to provide a haven for Jews who face persecution because they are Jews.
        Ultimately and sadly Jews can never depend on the good will of whatever other country they inhabit. History has proven that.

      • RoHa
        April 17, 2012, 11:25 pm

        “Being Jewish is a lineage that comes from having a Jewish mother.”

        So what makes the mother Jewish? Having a Jewish mother, I suppose. And what made her Jewish? We keep going back until we find the first Jewish mother. And what made her Jewish? Religion, maybe?

        “The primary reason for making Israel a Jewish state is to provide a haven for Jews who face persecution because they are Jews.”

        And so you say that the possible persecution of Jews justifies the real ethnic cleansing, oppression, and persecution of Palestinians.

        Why are Jews so important that they should be allowed to steal a land and drive out the people to protect themselves against possible persecution?

        “Ultimately and sadly Jews can never depend on the good will of whatever other country they inhabit”

        If they can’t stay Jews and get on with the neighbours, they should stop being Jews.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 18, 2012, 12:33 am

        “Ultimately and sadly Jews can never depend on the good will of whatever other country they inhabit”

        yeah, it’s the glass half empty approach. i have days like that. after my sister died my first inclination was to remember all the things we didn’t do together and all the times i failed her. but there were way way more good. if you just remember the bad stuff, them it paints an ugly picture.

      • Mayhem
        April 18, 2012, 6:33 am

        If they can’t stay Jews and get on with the neighbours, they should stop being Jews.

        Roha, you might not care about preserving your cultural identity, some people do.
        Catholic monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile would have agreed with your sentiments.

      • Hostage
        April 18, 2012, 7:03 am

        The primary reason for making Israel a Jewish state is to provide a haven for Jews who face persecution because they are Jews.

        Sure it is. Your Jewish State is: where doctors, nurses, social workers and other members of the Israeli establishment subject Ethiopian Jewish women to long term birth control; where the same groups secretly took Yemenite and other immigrant children away from their parents and told the families they had died; where Jewish women can be arrested for reading a Torah scroll in public; where the state put an end to the millenia-old religious tradition of Ethiopian Jewish priests; and where the government has deliberately made enemies out of the majority of the World’s Muslim population – especially those living in the neighboring and nearby states.

      • eGuard
        April 18, 2012, 7:27 am

        Mayhem: Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella would have agreed with your sentiments [, Roha].

        No. Roha says to them too: “If you can’t stand your Muslim or Jewish neighbours, F&I, stop being catholic.”

      • eGuard
        April 18, 2012, 7:32 am

        Mayhem: … care about preserving your cultural identity

        Please do so at home. Don’t steal land and houses, after deporting these “other” inhabitants, as preservation. Unless, of course, such stealing is your cultural identity.

      • RoHa
        April 18, 2012, 10:47 pm

        I notice you didn’t answer the two questions, “What made the first Jewish mother Jewish?” and “Why are Jews so much more important than other people?” Too hard?

        “Roha, you might not care about preserving your cultural identity, some people do.”

        If your “cultural identity” is more important to you than getting on with the neighbours, stop complaining when you have trouble with the neighbours.

        But note, first of all, that “preserving cultural identity” involves imposing that “cultural identity” on another generation. And on another after that. And so on. If that “cultural identity” leads to trouble with the neighbours, why pass that trouble on to your children and grandchildren?

        If a generation of Jews were to stop being Jews, and not pass on that “cultural identity”, their children would adopt another “cultural identity”, and that would most likely be the same as that of the neighbours. The children would be comfortable in their “cultural identity”, and there would be no more trouble with the neighbours.

        What makes a particular “cultural identity” so important that generation after generation has to suffer to “preserve” it?

      • eljay
        April 19, 2012, 7:45 am

        >> What makes a particular “cultural identity” so important that generation after generation has to suffer to “preserve” it?

        That’s easy: The more you suffer, the greater gawd rewards you when you get to hevven. Don’t you want the world’s children to receive the mostest reward from gawd? ;-)

  9. crone
    April 16, 2012, 10:00 pm

    What planet do you live on?… or, what are you smokin’ to have such a point of view?

    Phil wrote a piece called “Denial” – you might want to take a look at it…

  10. southernobserver
    April 17, 2012, 1:44 am

    so, keeping this year, you start a war by using terrorism to drive out the great majority of the original inhabitants. You capture 78% of the land, steal their property, and place the few who remain under martial law.

    This works, so you start new wars and during one of the wars of choice recapture many of those who fled your original war plus the remaining 22% of the land. You control the newly recaptured inhabitants by a combination of tyranny and poverty, and devise a plan to formally take over ~ 80% of this 22% particularly including all of the potable water and most of the arable land and divide up the the remaining 15 to 20% with prison barriers so that their lives will be unliveable; in the most cynical manner possible you implement this plan, all the while claiming to persecuted and attacked.

    the original inhabitants prove to be unreasonably reasonable, and agree to give up 78% AND any self defense AND the stolen property and to negotiate for those who were driven to leave by unspeakable acts, return for a usable 22%.

    The deal on offer rewards the aggressors right down the line, and gives the victims very little. It is at least questionable whether 22% with such restrictions can really be viable. Nevertheless, the victims are willing to try, to move on with their lives.

    and the aggressor rejects it. I personally believe that the reasons are theocratic, but I am interested to hear otherwise.

  11. Mayhem
    April 17, 2012, 5:56 am

    @eljay: Abbas cannot bring himself to say that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state, at the same time insisting that no Jew will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. 

    • Annie Robbins
      April 17, 2012, 12:02 pm

      states are not ‘entitled’ to ethnic or religious designations. they are governing bodies.

      http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/2_1.htm

    • eljay
      April 17, 2012, 12:12 pm

      >> Abbas cannot bring himself to say that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state

      Israel is not entitled to be a religion-supremacist Jewish state, so there’s no reason for him to say it.

      Israel should be a secular, democratic and egalitarian state for all Israelis, but no Zionist can bring himself to say that.

      >> … at the same time insisting that no Jew will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state.

      Neither Abbas nor anyone else has the right to suggest or insist that Jews are to be excluded from living in a future secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine.

    • Matt Giwer
      April 17, 2012, 12:34 pm

      Unless I missed the Bris people can claim to be Jewish. Real estate, land has no religious affiliation and certainly cannot speak for itself.

      However a theocracy can be declared. That would be a country where religious courts have police powers as in Israel.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 17, 2012, 12:37 pm

      Abbas….insisting that no Jew will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state.

      link?

      • Miss Costello
        April 17, 2012, 3:57 pm

        Don’t blink, you’ll miss it.

  12. eljay
    April 17, 2012, 1:04 pm

    >> link?

    He’s referring to this story:
    >> Answering a question about the legal status of a Jewish minority in the future state, [Maen Areikat, PLO Ambassador to the United States] apprently rejected the issue, saying: “I believe, I still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated,” adding “I think we can contemplate these issues in the future.”

    Subsequent to that, Mahmoud Habbash, the Palestinian minister of religious affairs (*rolleyes*) stated:
    >> “The future Palestinian state will be open to all its citizens, regardless of their religion,” Habbash said, according to USA Today. “We want a civil state, which in it live all the faiths, Muslim, Christian and Jews also if they agree, (and) accept to be Palestinian citizens.”

    ————————

    This is old news, previously discussed in this thread.

    And, for Mayhem’s benefit, this was the condemnation I made, in that thread, of Areikat’s comments.

    • Hostage
      April 17, 2012, 4:46 pm

      And, for Mayhem’s benefit, this was the condemnation I made, in that thread, of Areikat’s comments.

      In all fairness, the Haaretz article was summarizing information from an article that appeared in USA Today. That paper subsequently published an important clarification, which Haaretz did not pass along. USA Today said: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.” link to usatoday.com

      “Moderate” Israelis make worse pronouncements nearly every day, e.g. “The refugees are a clear red line for me. Not a single Palestinian refugee will go into Israel’s final borders.” — Kadima Party Leader MK Shaul Mofaz http://m.jpost.com/HomePage/FrontPage/Article.aspx?id=95265758&cat=1

      • eljay
        April 17, 2012, 9:30 pm

        >> In all fairness, the Haaretz article was summarizing information from an article that appeared in USA Today. That paper subsequently published an important clarification, which Haaretz did not pass along. USA Today said: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.” link to usatoday.com

        Thanks for the clarification.

        >> “Moderate” Israelis make worse pronouncements nearly every day …

        I don’t doubt that they do, but that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – excuse bad pronouncements made by Palestinians. IMHO. :-)

    • Mayhem
      April 17, 2012, 7:26 pm

      For Annie et al:

      From http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=184987

      “In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, “I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil.”

      This highlights a serious fundamental flaw in the Palestinian position. How can Israel be accused of not being genuine about peace because it is still permitting expansion of settlements when the Palestinian side holds a position that is far far more threatening to any fruitful negotiations for peace?

      There is this constant focus on Israel being insincere, because of its settlers, with scant attention on this racist, separationist policy that has been expressed by Abbas.  Netanyahu did enforce a settlements freeze for 10 months and the Palestinians did not budge.

      Initially Fayyad reluctantly accepted the task to present the latest set of demands from the Palestinian side to Israel but has now reneged.  Fayyad has opposed the latest moves and recently stated in closed talks that transferring the missive to Netanyahu is worthless and is only a publicity stunt.

      Despite the denials from other Palestinian representatives (cognizant of the gross hypocrisy of their position), deep down we know what a future Palestinian state is likely to be. A future secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine is pure pie in the sky.

      This topic could be retitled “The Palestinian cause has lost its meaning”.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2012, 9:24 pm

        i got as far as ‘caroline glick’, ‘nough said.

      • eljay
        April 17, 2012, 9:34 pm

        >> In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state.

        I Googled for an Egyptian source for this allegation/information, but couldn’t find one. Do you have a corroborating link to any report from anyone in the Egyptian media?

      • piotr
        April 18, 2012, 1:06 am

        You may try Memri, but it seems that while similar to certain PA statements, it is HEAVILY paraphrased.

        Anyway, congratulations on your patience, Annie. After they purged Derfner, I have no idea if there is a non-fascist commentator in JPost (remember that Mussolini was a much admired founder of fascism, Nazism represented a distortion).

      • Mayhem
        April 18, 2012, 4:37 am

        Apparently this information was based on a report from WAFA, the PA’s official press agency

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929819,00.html

  13. eljay
    April 18, 2012, 8:23 am

    >> Apparently this information was based on a report from WAFA, the PA’s official press agency

    I searched the english.wafa.ps website and the only statement I could find from Abbas that comes anywhere close to the allegation is this one made in August, 2011 (some months after the JPost article you linked to), in which he says he wants the settlements gone from a new Palestinian state.

    A demand to dismantle/remove the settlements is not the same as banning Jews from living in a future Palestinian state. Please don’t pretend it is. Instead, please provide a link to a valid report of Abbas’ alleged comment. Thanks.

Leave a Reply