New PA platform omits 'armed struggle'

The word "occupation" like the word "palestinean" are favourite fictions of the left.

The land, purchased with blood, belongs to the Israelis.

The so called "palestineans" are mostly Sunni muslim Syrians. When you tell them they are a people, they mostly look shocked.

Isn't it time to end the bull ?

Recently, PA spokeswoman Condoleeza Rice called for an international peace conference, right after the Gaza debacle.
This is bull-in-a-china-shop diplomacy. We just careen from one wreckage to the next.
Now Abbas/Fatah can cause the next smackup by clever wording. Then later, when the bombs go off, everyone can cluck.

It doesn't refer to "armed struggle" but I wonder if it mentions "smuggling arms..."

Is there some particular reason for thinking that the Salaam Fayad (the University of Texas-trained economist who spent most of his working life working for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and the World Bank, who declined to accept appointment as prime minister after the 2006 elections unless Hamas would recognize Israel, and who isn't a member of Hamas or of Fatah) must be dissimulating when he drops the call for armed struggle, or is it just the assumption that, because he's a Palestinian, he must be lying?

Abbas has always advocated the ultimate destruction of Israel, so he is certainly being disingenuous. They are still demanding the so-called "right of return," which they have made clear means this: Even if they were given a sovereign state, which they are in no position to control, they would nonetheless continue to demand that all descendents of those who ever had land in Israel proper back in 1948 be allowed to return and overwhelm the Jewish state demographically. In fact, instead of simply considering such people to be citizens of the new state, which would be the obvious and expected thing, and indeed a major purpose for which such a state was created, they would still call them "refugees."

The real danger here is that Abbas will get canny enough to pretend to drop the "right of return" demand and instead demand all of East Jerusalem (not just a few suburbs, as Haaretz mentioned in an article the other day) for a capital. If the Israelis are foolish enough, they might give in to that, at which point East Jerusalem would not only be turned back into an Arab dump (which they rescued it from being after the 6-day war) but would also be a base for further attacks on Israel, because they didn't get the "right of return"! Peace? You've gotta be kidding.

From the linked article:

"The platform also calls for a just and agreed-upon resolution to the refugee problem on the basis of UN resolutions."

Would that be the same UN with the Human Rights Council that is dominated by the Islamic bloc and its allies? The one chiding Ban Ki-Moon not to criticize it because it selectively concentrates on Israeli "violations" to the exclusion of other countries?

Mahmoud Abbas, smarting from Fatah's defeat in Gaza by Hamas, is now cleverly out for a full-court "peace" press. He knows Bush has only eighteen months left, with the mess in Iraq (a mess whatever the American administration now does -- and Bush the sentimentalist is apparently incapable of welcoming the internecine strife, or at least divisions, sectarian and ethnic, that were made inevitable by the removal of Saddam Hussein's iron grip, and that if allowed to fester, can only divide and demoralize and thereby weaken the Camp of Islam.

But Bush and Rice and Company are desperate for a "victory." And whenever a "victory" is needed, it's Peace Process Time in the Middle East. That's always good for all kinds of sentimentality, and exaggerated false hopes, and studied inattention to the dismal facts, including the central fact -- the unavoidable fact, the absolutely critical fact -- of Islam, and the impossibility of Arab Muslims ever, ever conceivably accepting the permanence of the Infidel (and what's still worse, Jewish) state of Israel. Peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims are always Truce Treaties, to be broken at the earliest opportunity. The refusal of American and Israeli leaders to read and find out about Muslim views on war and peace, to pretend that Majid Khadduri and everyone else who has studied the Law of War and Peace in Islam never wrote -- has Rice ever read, has the State Department ever circulated, the description by Khadduri of such treaty-making? Has Bush, has Cheney, have any of them read about, grasped the significance of, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D., then broke that treaty just as soon as he could (in 630 A.D.), following his own prescription that "war is deception"?

Only a fool, a wilful ignoramus, at this point, could seriously believe that if Israel makes further concessions these concessions will lead to, could possibly lead to, a permanent peace. It isn't possible. Only deterrrence keeps the peace between Israel and all those conducting, by qital (combat), by terrorism, by economic pressure (the money weapon) of boycotts, by demographic pressure (those huge Arab families, so rapidly and deliberately outbreeding the Jews). It is only "Darura" (google "Darura" and "Hugh Fitzgerald"), that is the principle of Necessity, that can conceivaby keep the peace.

Right now it is Necessity, Darura, that causes Mahmoud Abbas, that corrupt collaborator with Yassir Arafat, who nonetheless has been doing his best to imitate a mild-mannered casper-milquetoast of an accountant, to want so very quickly -- while a foolish and desperate Olmert, and a desperate and foolish Bush, for their own personal reasons wish to arrive at an agreement, any damn agreement, and why the sensible heads of those in Israel and America, the people who understand or can be made to understand the principles of Muslim treaty-making, and the clear doctrines of Islam on this score (it is a fantastic idea to believe that Israel yielding more territory to the Arabs can do anything at all, save whet their appetites -- after so many mistakes, in Iraq and elsewherer, mistakes that are always about the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, the biggest mistake of all, the one that has been repeatedly made, by successive Israeli governments, may be -- unless the informed and the unswayable come to the fore -- about to make a mistake that will be the mere insect of an hour, giving Bush his little "victory" and Olmert his, but in fact endangbering, possibly mortally, for all time to come, the people and state of Israel.

The Israelis do not deserve that. They do not deserve a government, or so-called "friends" elsewhere, willing to force a "two-state solution" that makes no sense, that flies directly in the face of the commands and demands of Islam.

Abbas, and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah want that Infidel aid in the biggest way, and want as well, as a first step, as much of the West Bank as they can get -- and with such permanently hopeful and uncomprehending naifs as now rule Israel, with Olmert at the helm, and his second-in-command Haim Ramon (such an enthusiast for the destruction of Israeli villages in Gaza, some built decades before the State of Israel came into existence), and finally, the terminally confused Tsipi Livni, he knows that the next year, when these people are still (unaccountably) in office, and when Bush will be desperate for a "victory," and when all the Arabs have tacitly agreed to be as outwardly full of sweet reason as they can, until the Muslim populations have another few years to be fruitful and miultiply all over Western Europe (oh, they know exactly what they are doing, as they play for time, stall for time, in reaction to the shock of discovering that many in the United States, and even in Western Europe, are beginning -- despite the army of Western hirelings and the careful infiltration and takeover of so many "sources of information" such as academic centers and departments devoted ostensigly to the study of Islam and the Middle East. Rigfht now the Saudis, for example -- see recent issues of "Aramco World" (always a good indicator), see the letters campaign from supposedly aw-shucks downhome American-as-apple-pie Muslims, see the barrage of Op/Eds, from Tariq Ramadan's serpentine hiss on up, or down, teling us that "European Islam" or "American Islam" will be so very different from the other kind -- the kind one sees all over the Lands of Islam, and always has seen -- withoutr of course anyone ever satisfactorily explaining just how this "European Islam" or this "American Islam," based as it will be on the same immutable texts of Islam, those studied at Al-Azhar in Cairo, by the Islamic scholars of Saudi Arabia, by those mullahs and ayatollahs now running the Islamic Republic of Iran -- the texts that are the same,whatever the emphasis, read and memorized by Muslims everywhere, over the past 1350years.

They are right now, temporarily, engaged in an act of smiles and wiles. And Mahmoud Abbas is no different. His goal remains, as of course it must remain, the disappearance of an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of Dar al-Islam. If he has to lie, briefly, to get it, of course he will. And even if, for some reason, he was not meretricious, but had had a conversion on the non-road to Damascus, it would mean nothing. Other Muslims, who do take their Islam seriously, would follow him.

The decisioins to be taken by the likes of Olmert and Bush are momentous. They may decide whether the Jewish state, built by the Jewish people ho had to wait 200 years to rebuild the Jewish commonwealth, will lives or die. If it dies, they will get no second chance. And the world's Christians, too, will be unlikely to have free access to Jerusalem, and the hearts and minds of Muslims willnot have been "won" but rather, will swell with an ominous triumphalism that will be dangerous for what of the non-Muslim West remains.

The "Two-state solution" is a folly based on folly. Clearer minds and purer hearts are needed, in the government of Israel, and in the government of the United States.

i do not think iran will allow abbas to make slow jihad, they will fuel the hammas boys for fast jihad.

over the year, Palestinians have made many promised and said many good thing....they have dishonored every promise and never did a good deed...nothing has changed....

All those comments going on and on about Abbas seem to be by people who haven't read the article, which isn't about Abbas except tangentially; it's about Salaam Fayyad, whose proposal has brought him accusations of being a "collaborator" with Israel. Is this the guy you really want to kick in the teeth? If so, you're like those in Britain and America who refused to have anything to do with those behind July 20 Bomb Plot, and who when it failed laughed about "Nazis killing Nazis."

The "Two-state solution" is a folly based on folly.

Funny, but the two-state solution is the one called for by General Assembly Resolution 181 (III), pursuant to which the State of Israel was established. So if you reject the two-state solution, you reject the ground for Israel's existence and adopt the position that the Arabs were supporting in 1947-48.

Seamus: Regardless of whether Abbas is the focus of the article, Abbas, not Fayyad, is the leader of the truncated PA. This holocaust denier, who arranged the funding for the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972, has clearly chosen Arafat's path of the phased destruction of Israel. Fayyad may be more to the left (i.e., willing to move even slower), but any person supporting the "Right of Return" is a de facto denier of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

The two-state solution championed by the U.N. in 1947 was rejected by every Arab nation, and today is in principal rejected by the Palestinian Arabs as well. The Arab declaration of war in place of the acceptance of the 1947 partition plan once and forever caused the forfeiture by Arabs of any part of Palestine West of the Jordan River to Israel. While the PA may choose to temporarily suspend armed struggle, the Palestinian National Charter has included, since 1964, and continues to include, the stated goal of the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with a 23rd Arab-Muslim state.

And, as others here have so well pointed out, the U.N. of 2007 is hardly a body which democratic, non-Muslim nations can trust to protect their interests, or even their existance. Yes, I, and many others, reject the "23-state solution," since we feel 22 Arab-Muslim states are sufficient, and truncating the one Jewish state into what Abba Eban referred to as "Auschwicz Borders" is no more than the implementation of Arafat's phased plan of Israeli destruction that he launched in 1974.

Oh, and Seamus, here is a news article with excellent quotes from your "Israel-collaborator" Fayyad, calling for "resistance" - p.c. speak for terroristic attacks against Israel.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123238

Note that this was said after the term "armed struggle" was omitted from the PA platform. A rose by any other name...