Tag Archives: Palestine Liberation Organization

A Problem With The Two-State Solution

Posted on by

It would be nice if Israel and a new nation (historically it has never been a nation) of Palestine could live side-by-side. However, that is highly unlikely unless things change drastically.

One problem is what the Palestinians are teaching their children. Below is a picture of Palestinian kindergarten children dressed as suicide bombers. They are being taught that it is noble to die in the act of killing Jews. That might be a problem if you want peace.

Another problem is that the families of terrorists are generously paid for the terrorist acts of family members.

CBN has posted the following information along with a petition to Congress to sign the Taylor Force Act.

In 2016, Taylor Force was murdered in a knife attack while on a Vanderbilt University trip to Tel Aviv, Israel. His attacker was a Palestinian man who was paid with U.S. tax dollars by the Palestinian Authority, a known terrorist organization, to murder Taylor. The terrorist was killed by police—but his family was left with a lifelong lucrative financial reward:

  • Pension for life that is triple the average salary in the West Bank
  • Free tuition for life
  • Free health insurance for life
  • Free clothing allowance for life
  • Free monthly stipend—ALL courtesy of U.S. tax dollars.

This practice of financially incentivized murder is known as #PayToSlay. We must stop it.

Each year, the U.S. government gives $300 million in U.S. taxpayer money to the Palestinian Authority for the promotion of peace in the area—but that’s not how the PA uses it:

  • In 2016, the PA paid $135 million to terrorists jailed in Israel
  • And $183 million to family of terrorists and to incentivize future attacks
  • That adds up to more than $300 million to reward and incentivize acts of murder—in one year alone.

This is the information on the Taylor Force Act as posted at Thomas.gov:

Summary: H.R.1164 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

Introduced in House (02/16/2017)

Taylor Force Act

This bill prohibits certain assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 from being made available for the West Bank and Gaza unless the Department of State certifies that the Palestinian Authority:

  • is taking steps to end acts of violence against U.S. and Israeli citizens perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control, such as the March 2016 attack that killed former Army officer Taylor Force;
  • is publicly condemning such acts of violence and is investigating, or cooperating in investigations of, such acts; and
  • has terminated payments for acts of terrorism against U.S. and Israeli citizens to any individual who has been convicted and imprisoned for such acts, to any individual who died committing such acts, and to family members of such an individual.

This is what has happened in the Senate:

To put it bluntly, unless the American people make noise, this bill will die in committee in the Senate. It is about time that America stopped funding to families of terrorists who kill Israelis.

Foreign Policy Driven By Petulance

Posted on by

CBN News is reporting today that because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s victory in Israel’s election, President Obama may stop American opposition to the United Nation‘s imposing a two-state solution on Israel. First of all, let’s look at this logically. When Israel turned over the West Bank to the Arabs, what did they get? They got suicide bombers and rocket attacks coming from the area. When the Arabs took over the land, the first thing they did was destroy the greenhouses that would have provided employment and a source of income. The money coming into the area from foreign countries was not spent on infrastructure–it was used to buy weapons and build tunnels to attack Israel. Why in the world would anyone want to give terrorists more land?

The article at CBN reports:

The prime minister’s acceptance of two states has always been based on the Palestinians‘ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, secure borders for Israel, and keeping Jerusalem the united capital of Israel. All three conditions were rejected by Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

The administration is also hinting it may support the Palestinian Authority‘s petition to the U.N. Security Council on the unilateral establishment of a state.

“Our position in support of a two-state solution is very clear. Only a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel alongside a sovereign and independent Palestine can bring lasting peace and stability to both people,” U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said.

“Of course, we will continue to pursue this goal with the new Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority,” he added.

The notion of a Palestinian state next door to Israel troubles many Israelis after all of the terrorist attacks they’ve faced in recent years from Islamic fighters.

If the United States and the United Nations do support such a deal, that could mean still more tension between the Jewish state and much of the rest of the world.

This is a total turnaround from previous American foreign policy. The Arabs do not want a two-state solution–they want to drive Israel into the sea and kill all the Jews. That is not something America should be supporting.

We need to remember that the Bible says that he who blesses Israel will be blessed and he who curses Israel will be cursed. The Obama Administration is about to put America in mortal danger.

How We Got Where We Are In The Middle East

Posted on by

Dr. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School. He posted an article at CNN on Friday entitled, “Why Land For Peace Is Dead.”

The article reminds us that September 18, 1978, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the so-called Camp David Accords.This agreement set up the idea that Israel could trade land and receive peace in exchange. In 1979, a peace treaty was signed between Israel and Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat for signing that treaty. Despite the loss of Anwar Sadat, the idea that the Sinal Peninsula had been successfully traded to bring peace brought hope.

Dr. Rubin reminds us:

It was this example that Bill Clinton sought to capitalize upon in the 1993 Oslo Accords. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to recognize Israel and work toward peace in exchange for land in historical Palestine. I was in Bahrain in 1994 when PLO chairman Yasser Arafat entered the Gaza Strip to establish the Palestinian Authority. Enthusiasm was palpable across the region. Within weeks, Jordan had signed its own peace accord with Israel, and Persian Gulf emirates, Tunisia, and Morocco looked like they might follow suit.

The concept of land for peace was also the reason Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Dr. Rubin further reminds us:

The logic of land for peace became the basis for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000. The formula of trading land for peace had already begun to unravel. Israel expected if not peace, then quiet. They had removed the last remaining dispute between Israel and Lebanon. Alas, Israel’s withdrawal foreshadowed greater conflict. Even though the United Nations certified Israel’s withdrawal as complete, Hezbollah laid claim not only to the Shebaa Farms – an Israeli occupied area which historically is part of Syria – but also seven villages in the Galilee, a region well within Israel’s recognized borders.

It sounds as if the concept of land for peace was being exploited early on. From there, things go downhill quickly.

The article reports:

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was also rapidly deteriorating. Certainly, when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, there are always mutual recriminations. What is clear, however, is that Arafat had voided his pledge to resolve future conflict with Israel at the negotiating table. Many commentators mark the beginning of the “Second Intifada” as Likud leader Ariel Sharon’s September 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. But this is dishonest. On August 24, 2000, several weeks before Sharon’s visit, Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein threatened, “Violence is near, and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties.” Communications Minister Imad al-Faluji reportedly admitted to Palestinian radio that “Arafat ordered preparations for the current intifada immediately after the Camp David summit, as part of the negotiating process with Israel.” The Oslo Process and the land-for-peace formula that underlay it had begun to breakdown.

There are two very telling quotes in the conclusion of the article:

Most Israelis view their experience of land-for-peace in the same fashion that Native Americans consider their experience with the concept.

...Hamas’ decision to turn Gaza into a forward missile base rather than the engine for an independent Palestine condemns 35 years of peacemaking to history’s garbage bin and sets the stage for a conflict far more disruptive than anyone in the region has seen in a half century.

Israel has been seeking peace since 1948. They are not the problem. Until Hamas seeks peace and acknowledges Israel’s right to exist, there will be no peace.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Be Careful Who You Believe When You Look For Fact-Checkers

Posted on by
"The Honorable Rick Perry (front right), ...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, a liberal reporter who now claims to be The Fact-Checker, and his fact checking of a recent Rick Perry speech. When asked whether there should be a Palestinian state, Rick Perry called for Palestine to denounce terrorism and to require that any Palestinian state be required to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Sounds pretty basic to me.

The Fact-Checker replied:

As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, in an exchange of letters between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Palestine Liberation Organization met all of these conditions nearly 20 years ago. The letters are posted on the Web site of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Really? Is Mr. Kessler familiar with the term ‘Intifada?’ Mr. Hinderaker points out that Palestinian children are taught that Jews have no right to be in Palestine and the maps shown to these children show Palestine as including all of present-day Israel.

The article at Power Line concludes:

One last thing: Kessler thinks that Israel has nothing to fear because of a twenty-year-old letter from a dead terrorist. What is the PA’s real intention, as of today? Look no farther than this: as Scott reported earlier today, “Palestine” is represented in the United Nations by the heroine Latifa Abu Hmeid. What is her claim to fame? She is the mother of no fewer than four terrorist murderers, who together are serving a total of 18 life sentences. Is Rick Perry’s concern about whether the Palestinians and their leaders are really reconciled to the existence of Israel unfounded? Let’s be blunt: Glenn Kessler either is woefully ignorant of Middle Eastern history, or he is deliberately misleading his readers.

Palestine does not want a two-state solution–they want a one-state solution with Palestine as the state. Creating a Palestinian state at this time under the current Palestinian culture would be a recipe for war–not peace. Until the schools stop teaching hate and the state stops honoring terrorists and terrorism, we need to make sure Israel is armed to the teeth. That is the path to peace in the Middle East. A weak Israel is an easy target.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Legitimizing AntiSemitism

Posted on by
Street in Jerusalem Old City

Image via Wikipedia

I expect that sometime in the next few days, the United Nations will vote on whether or not to recognize a Palestinian State. There has never been a state of Palestine, although Jordan was originally established as a home for Palestinians, but the United Nations will be voting on one shortly. What would that state look like?

Haaretz reported on September 14th that:

Answering a question about the legal status of a Jewish minority in the future state, Areikat 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.”

“After the experience of the last 44 years, of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interest that the two peoples should be separated,” Areikat added. 

USA Today reported on September 15th:

Habbash’s comments come after the ambassador for the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United States, Maen Areikat, said when asked Tuesday whether he could foresee a Jew being elected mayor of Ramallah, the capital of the West Bank: “I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”

Areikat, speaking at a breakfast for reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, continued: “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”

These statements have been walked back slightly, but I believe the original statements are probably the truth. I would like to remind anyone too young to remember that prior to 1967, when the Arabs controlled the Old City of Jerusalem that Christians and Jews did not have access to their holy sites. In recent years, the Jews have controlled the Old City, and the area is open to people of all faiths. It seems to me that history tells us what a Palestinian state would be like.

There seems to be an effort on the part of some Palestinians to claim that Palestine would be a peaceful, equal-opportunity state. USA Today reports:

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have called for a secular, pluralistic Palestinian state, says Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine, which advocates a non-militarized Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The article in USA Today further reports:

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, said he read Areikat’s comments to mean a ban on Jews.

“That’s the state that the Palestinians want to declare unilaterally, without negotiations, and have recognized by the U.N.,” Oren said

I think I agree with Michael Oren. I have a hard time believing that the large number of weapons currently being smuggled into the West Bank are for peaceful purposes.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Law Of Unintended Consequences At Work

Posted on by

CNS News reported today on some of the unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority’s decision to go to the United Nations next month and ask to be recognized as a state. The article points out that since 1975 the United Nations has recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” If the United Nations recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a state, the Palestinians’ representation will change from the PLO to a “state of Palestine.” All Palestinians living outside the boundaries of the “state of Palestine” will no longer be represented at the United Nations.

The article further points out:

Goodwin-Gill  (Oxford University professor of public international law Guy Goodwin-Gill, an expert on refugee issues) also cited problems relating to the ability of the P.A. to assume greater powers. (Established under the Oslo Accords as an interim body to administer the self-rule areas, the P.A. is not empowered to conduct foreign affairs, a role that was left to the PLO.)

The academic said in the brief that the P.A. is a subsidiary entity set up by the PLO with “limited legislative and executive competence, limited territorial jurisdiction, and limited personal jurisdiction over Palestinians not present in the areas for which it has been accorded responsibility.”

There is another issue–Palestinian representation in Washington, D.C. The article points out:

The PLO has been permitted to maintain an office in Washington since 1994. Because of the PLO’s long history of involvement in terrorism, presidential waivers have been required by law every six months to allow its continued operation.

“Would that waiver henceforth be permitted, or be exercised?” Abrams wondered. “But if the PLO office is closed, would the United States accredit an embassy for the State of Palestine? Obviously not, as it would be the American position that there is no State of Palestine, not yet anyway.”

I don’t support a Palestinian state until the Palestinians agree to the existence of Israel. I also don’t believe that the Palestinians are entitled to any part of Jerusalem–Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since King David–it should not be given away. The difficulties in creating a Palestinian state show that the idea has not been well thought out and might have results that are not good for anyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta