Door Crethi Plethi

You can read this article in English here.

Vrijdagnacht was het dan zover. Zoals Geert Wilders het al voorspelde tijdens de besprekingen naar aanleiding van het Rapport Davids “binnen een half jaar is dit kabinet gevallen”, heeft vice-premier Bos zich onbuigzaam opgesteld in de kwestie Uruzgan waardoor het vertrouwen om samen verder te gaan verdwenen was en er niets restte dan het kabinet te laten vallen. In commentaren lees je regelmatig dat Nederland een internationale verplichting heeft om deel te blijven nemen aan de NATO inzet in Afghanistan, maar dat de PVDA zich star vast hield aan eerder gemaakte afspraken. Hoe waar dit ook is, geeft het vallen van Balkenende IV ook iets anders aan. De Nederlandse PVDA is een onbetrouwbare partner gebleken en dat vanwege het politieke spel als er verkiezingen op komst zijn. Dat Wouter Bos (en daarmee de PVDA) onbetrouwbaar is heeft hij al eerder bewezen tijdens de kabinetsformatie van Balkenende II. Waarschijnlijk verwacht Wouter Bos te kunnen oogsten dankzij zijn Uruzgan opstelling, maar dat zal dan vooral op conto komen van de PVDA’s “moslim” electoraat.

Deze zelfde Islamitisch-Linkse opstelling laat de PVDA ook regelmatig zien in de kwestie Israël en de Palestijnen. Onlangs las ik een interessant artikel van Professor Barry Rubin (NATO kills civilians accidentally) over de dubbele moraal die de wereld laat zien als het gaat om burgerslachtoffers veroorzaakt door Israël in de strijd tegen Islamitisch terrorisme ten opzichte van de burgerslachtoffers veroorzaakt door de NAVO in Afghanistan.

Martijn van Dam

Het herinnerde me aan een discussie die ik een tijdje geleden had met het PVDA Tweede Kamerlid Martijn van Dam. Hij is lid van de PVDA en woordvoerder buitenlandse politiek en media. De PVDA is in Nederland onderdeel van de anti-Israël lobby en speelt een stimulerende rol als het gaat om het zwart maken van Israël, het verspreiden van negatief nieuws over Israël en het steunen van de uitkomsten van de Goldstone Rapport zonder naar de achtergronden van het rapport te kijken. Daarnaast roept ook de PVDA regelmatig op tot een boycot van Israël produkten en goederen. Het zal u niet verbazen dat veel moslims in Nederland traditioneel op de PVDA stemmen.

De Associated Press bericht: “Twaalf Afghanen werden zondag gedood toen twee raketten, die afgevuurd waren tegen opstandelingen, het doel mistte en in een huis insloeg tijdens de tweede dag van de meest ambitieuze poging van de NAVO in Afghanistan om de grip van de militanten op het gevaarlijke zuiden van het land te breken.”

Rubin schrijft in zijn artikel:

“Die twaalf Afghanen zijn natuurlijk burgers, een woord wat het verslag in de inleiding nalaat te vermelden, maar het wordt verderop in het verhaal genoemd. De Taliban-militanten zouden we terroristen kunnen noemen, hoewel in sommige opzichten zelfs die benaming te genereus zou zijn. Zij brachten een regime in Afghanistan, die duizenden mensen vermoord en vrouwen als vee behandeld heeft, en ze hielpen om 11 september 2001 mogelijk te maken, waarbij 3.000 Amerikanen werden afgeslacht… Later in het artikel wordt terloops vermeld dat de “militanten” vanuit huizen van burgers vuren op de Amerikaanse mariniers in de stad. En het is precies dit soort dingen die leiden tot burgerslachtoffers. Dit incident zal snel worden vergeten, net zoals soortgelijke hiervoor.”

De discussie die ik had met Martijn van Dam ging over een gelijkwaardig incident waarbij een Nederlandse F-16 betrokken was, toen een raket werd afgevuurd op een huis met Taliban militanten, terwijl er ook burgers op hetzelfde terrein aanwezig waren. Dit resulteerde in de dood van 13 mensen (4 Taliban militanten) waaronder 3 vrouwen en 6 kinderen en 3 burgers raakten gewond. Ik vroeg aan Martijn van Dam waarom hij stil bleef na dit incident, terwijl als Israël burgerslachtoffers veroorzaakt, hij (en de rest van de Nederlandse anti-Israël lobby) meteen Israël veroordelen en Israël beschuldigen van het opzettelijk bestoken van burgerdoelen of erger nog, van oorlogsmisdaden.

Rubin schrijft:

“Als dit incident gebeurd was ten gevolge van Israëlische raketten zou het massale demonstraties tegen Israël losmaken, er zou een VN-rapport gepubliceerd worden wat stelt dat hieruit blijkt dat Israël een criminele Staat is, veel regeringen zouden roepen om sancties tegen Israël, anderen zouden voorstellen doen voor een internationaal onderzoek, en het zou Westerse intellectuelen motiveren om te zeggen dat dit bewijst dat Israël geen recht op bestaan heeft. En toch was deze dwaling met de NAVO-raketten zonder twijfel een ongeluk, net zoals dat soms gebeurt (waarschijnlijk met een veel lagere frequentie in proportionele termen bekeken) als Israël zich verdedigt tegen de Hamas en Hezbollah, twee groepen die streven naar de genocide van de Joodse inwoners van Israël. Dergelijke incidenten horen bij de aard van oorlogvoering, en vooral in de aard van oorlogvoering zoals die door Hamas, Hezbollah en de Taliban gevoerd worden. Is het echt zo moeilijk om deze dingen te begrijpen?”

Dus, stel ik u opnieuw de vraag, Martijn van Dam, is het echt zo moeilijk om deze dingen te begrijpen? Of moet u zo nodig de anti-Israël agenda van uw partij ondersteunen? U wilt zeker niet de Islamitische-linkse alliantie teleurstellen, of niet? Eerlijkheid is een deugd, meneer van Dam.

Rubin gaat verder:

“Waarom wordt Israël dan anders benaderd bij dit soort incidenten dan de NATO in Marjah, Afghanistan (of het Nederlandse incident in Helmand, Afghanistan)? Er zijn veel redenen, maar de grootste reden is deze: de Verenigde Staten is een groot machtig land en veel mensen willen de Verenigde Staten niet van zich vervreemden of bekritiseren. Israël is maar een klein land. En ondanks de schijn, is Israël nog steeds “David”, terwijl Hamas en Hezbollah door Iran, de Arabische (moslim)staten en de West-linkse alliantie gesteund, de “Goliath” is.”

Ik denk dat Barry Rubin dit keer zijn lezers wilde sparen, want ik ben er niet zo zeker van dat het feit dat veel mensen de Verenigde Staten niet van zich willen vervreemden of bekritiseren hiervoor de grootste reden is. Mijn indruk is toch wel het tegenovergestelde, zeker wat Europa aangaat. Veel Europeanen doen niets anders dan de Verenigde Staten bekritiseren en aanvallen. Ik denk juist dat we hier te maken hebben met een verborgen agenda, namelijk joden haat in de meest pure vorm, gegrondvest in de harten van Europeanen (in organisaties, in onze regeringen en ook in Moslimlanden) en dat is de hoofdreden voor de dubbele moraal en de vooringenomenheid die we zien tegen Israël. Want de volgende supermacht kan net zo goed China of Rusland worden en dat zou de dubbele moraal niet doen stoppen, terwijl er altijd (net zoals vroeger) maar één Israël (Jood) is geweest wat beschuldigd kan worden en dat zal nooit stoppen. Het vraagt echter wel een zekere moed om naar jezelf toe te erkennen dat de redenen van deze wereldwijde strijd tegen Israël en de Joden gefundeerd zijn in progressieve, Islamitische, extremistische of antisemitische gevoelens. Onze wereld wordt helaas gedomineerd door deze gevoelens: bijvoorbeeld de VN wordt gedomineerd door de Islamitische landen en door de Chinese en Russische veto’s. Fascisme, links extremisme, nazisme, Islamofascisme, religieus extremisme, Islamisme and radicaal socialisme, zij allen delen deze anti-Joodse gevoelens.

Terug naar mijn discussie met Martijn van Dam. Ik vroeg hem of hij “het verschil in deze zaak kon aangeven tussen de Nederlanders en Israëliërs wat betreft het veroorzaken van burgerslachtoffers.” Ik benadrukte dat de Nederlandse politici zwijgen in de media als er burgerslachtoffers vallen door acties van een Nederlandse F-16 (of door andere NAVO troepen). Terwijl Israël meteen en onvoorwaardelijk veroordeeld wordt door dezelfde Nederlandse politici, hoor ik nu geen veroordeling voor deze NATO actie. Het lijkt er wel op alsof een Palestijns leven van meer waarde is voor de Nederlandse politici dan een Afghaans leven. En zo gauw “onze jongens” (of NAVO troepen) verantwoordelijk zijn voor burgerslachtoffers, krijgen “we” meteen te horen dat er zorgvuldig gehandeld is en is het plotseling onvermijdelijk dat er burgerslachtoffers vallen in de strijd tegen de Taliban… bla bla bla bla… maar dit alles geldt niet voor Israël. Wat ik me dan afvraag is wat de mensen verschillend vinden aan wat de Taliban doet en wat de Hamas doet in het gebruiken van burgers als menselijk schild tijdens gevechten. Daarnaast vroeg ik hem om de Nederlandse actie te veroordelen en het een mogelijke misdaad te noemen tegen de menselijkheid en een onderzoek te starten. Zo niet, zwijg dan ook in het vervolg over israël.

Denk je dat hij met een wel doordacht antwoord kwam? Dan kom je bedrogen uit. Hij antwoordde als verwacht, vol met anti-Israël vooroordelen, en zich verschuilend achter de anti-Israël lobby (in de VN), die zich door het installeren van comités, missies en produceren van officiële documenten met anti-Israël retoriek probeert te rechtvaardigen:

“Wat gebeurd is, is verschrikkelijk. Bij Israel hebben wij gepleit voor onderzoek, nu pleiten we ook voor onderzoek. Misschien kun je eerst het antwoord afwachten voordat je grote woorden gebruikt. Het was overigens het VN-onderzoek dat geconcludeerd heeft dat Israel oorlogsmisdaden heeft gepleegd, niet ik. De VN-commissie is van mening dat Israel zijn doelen niet zorgvuldig selecteerde zoals je zegt. Integendeel.”

Je begrijpt natuurlijk wel dat een officieel onderzoek in het Nederlandse Parlement of bij de VN nooit opgestart is wat betreft de burgerslachtoffers in Afghanistan.

Ik heb Martijn van Dam eraan herinnerd dat het meestal de Nederlandse anti-Israël lobby is die grote woorden gebruiken als het op Israël aankomt. Israël is vrijwel altijd de beschuldigde partij en dat zelfs zonder een onderzoek. De Hamas en de Taliban zijn niet eens zo verschillend wat betreft hun achtergronden (beide terreurgroepen op Islamitische basis die hun samenleving Islamiseren en de Islamitische Religieuze Wetgeving willen opleggen), wat betreft hun gevechtstechnieken in burger gebieden, in het gebruik van burgers als menselijke schilden en beiden zijn bereid om hun eigen mensen op te offeren, terwijl Hamas de directe vernietiging van Israël nastreeft. Ik heb Martijn van Dam voorgesteld om de VN een onderzoek te laten doen, onder leiding van Pakistan, Egypte en Cuba naar de luchtaanval door de Nederlandse F-16.

Volgens Martijn van Dam is het slechts een incident:

Houdt u wel het verschil in het oog tussen een afschuwelijk incident waar enkele burgerslachtoffers bij zijn gevallen en een oorlog van drie weken met vele incidenten en vele honderden burgerslachtoffers?

Welnu, sinds het begin van de oorlog in 2001 (in Afghanistan) zijn er tussen de 5,317 en 8,109 Afghaanse burgerslachtoffers gevallen door gerichte gevechtshandelingen van VS en NATO troepen. Dit een incident te noemen laat nogal een dubbele moraal zien, vindt u niet?

Volgens Martijn van Dam worden:

In Afghanistan dergelijke incidenten tot nu toe vaak door minstens drie partijen onderzocht, namelijk de de betrokken landen zelf, de NAVO en de Afghaanse mensenrechtencommissie die onafhankelijk en kritisch is. Ook de Afghaanse regering of de VN (UNAMA) kunnen onderzoeken doen na incidenten waar men dat nodig acht. Ook Amnesty, Human Rights Watch of andere internationale organisaties doen onderzoek indien ze dat nodig vinden. Conclusies van dergelijke onderzoeken zijn nog nooit door de betrokken landen de prullenbak in verwezen of gekraakt wegens zogenaamde partijdigheid of eenzijdigheid. NAVO-landen werken bovendien altijd volledig mee aan onderzoeken. De situaties zijn dus niet geheel vergelijkbaar.

Inderdaad kunnen ze dergelijke onderzoeken doen. En wat zou de wereld daar dan vervolgens mee doen?

En dat is dus precies het punt wat ik hier tracht te maken. De Afghaanse regering of de VN vragen helemaal niet om het onderzoeken van deze incidenten op basis van de beschuldiging van oorlogsmisdaden zoals dat wel gebeurd is na de Gaza oorlog met de Goldstone Comité. Het doen voorkomen dat Israël niet een democratisch land is waar beschuldigingen van oorlogsmisdaden niet serieus onderzocht worden en waar niet wordt samen gewerkt met onbevooroordeelde en onafhankelijke onderzoeken is hetzelfde als opzettelijk demoniseren van Israël. In feite zijn het juist de Hamas en de Taliban die buiten alle Internationale wetten en de Geneefse Conventie om opereren. Wie onderzoekt deze zaken? Wanneer zijn politici geïnteresseerd in gebalanceerde feiten en bezorgd over burgerslachtoffers ten gevolge van terroristische acties door de Hamas en de Taliban?

Is Martijn van Dam een politicus die Joden haat? Nee, hij is geen joden hater, maar hij is zeker wel een linkse politicus die weet hoe hij in de hedendaagse politieke stroming politiek correcte antwoorden moet geven die passen in het anti-Israël patroon zoals we die zien in Europa, de VN en de VS. Hij ziet er zelfs heil in om met de Hamas te praten, terwijl hij weet dat Hamas niets liever wil dan een genocide veroorzaken onder de Joodse bevolking van Israël. Voor Israël valt er niets te winnen met deze beleidsmakers en Israël heeft ook niets te winnen met Martijn van Dam’s partij, de PVDA.

Het vraagt inderdaad moed om te erkennen dat de wereld ingezet heeft op een nieuwe holocaust. Is het echt zo moeilijk om deze dingen te begrijpen?

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Boycotcampagne tegen Israel ‘Misleidend’ en ‘Oneerlijk’
2. De Zaak tegen het Goldstone Rapport
3. “Steun het Verzet tegen de Islamisering van Europa”

Part 3 of a comprehensive study (published by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, LA, California, USA, 7 october 2005) about the lies and myths that fuels the propaganda against Israel and its existence as a jewish state. Because of the extensive length of this study, its published according to the 3 originally chapters.

Originally published by the freerepublic, 7 october 2005.

You can read a Dutch translation (nederlandse vertaling) of the original content (chapter 3) here, published in three parts: part 3, part 4, and part5.

—-

by David Meir-Levi

Part 3: THE QUESTION OF OCCUPATION AND THE SETTLEMENTS

Besides the refugee problem, the two most prominent issues in the Arab propaganda war against Israel are the alleged Jewish occupation of Arab lands and the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To peel away the myths enveloping these issues and proceed to the realities beneath, it is necessary to review their history within the context of the Arab war against Israel, which has been going on without interruption since the creation of Israel in 1948, and which includes the Arab hostility towards the Jews before that.

–

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Early Zionism

Zionist pioneers from the middle of the 19th century onward joined the local Jewish communities in rebuilding a Jewish homeland in what was then the Turkish Empire by purchasing land from the Turkish Crown and from Arab landowners (effendi). There was no invasion, no conquest, and no theft of Arab land – and certainly not of a land of Palestine, since the Arabs living in the region had been Turkish subjects for 400 years. Unarmed and possessing no military, the Jews bought so much land from Arabs that in 1892, a group of effendi sent a letter to the Turkish Sultan, requesting that he make it illegal for his subjects to sell land to the Jews. Their successors did the same thing, via a telegram, in 1915. Evidently, the very presence of Jews owning land in the Middle East – however legally acquired – was offensive to some.

zionism

It is indisputable that there was no theft, because no one com­plained of any. No Arabs were driven from their homes. In fact, as a demographic study published by Columbia University demonstrates⁵, the Arab population of the area grew tremendously during this period in part because of the economic development that the Jews helped to generate. Between 1514 AD and circa 1850, the Arab population of this region of the Turkish Empire was more or less static at about 340,000. It suddenly began to increase around 1855, and by 1947 the Arab population stood at about 1,300,000 — almost quadrupling in less than 100 years. The exact causes of this population rise are beyond the scope of this essay, but the causal correlation between this independently documented phenomenon and the Zionist enterprise is beyond rational argument.

Far from driving out any Arabs, stealing their land or ruining their economy, the work of the Jewish pioneers in the 19th and early 20th centuries actually enabled the Arab population to quadruple, the economy to enter the modern era, and the society to slough off the shackles of serfdom that typified the effendi-fellah (land-owner/serf) relationship of the Ottoman era. An Arab working in a Jewish factory or farming community could earn in a month what his father earned in a year eking out a living as a subsistence-level farmer using medieval technology. Arab infant mortality plummeted and longevity increased as the Jews shared their modern medical technology with their Arab neighbors.

Much of the land that the Zionists purchased was desert and swamp, uninhabited and deemed uninhabitable by the Arabs. Modern agrarian techniques instituted by the Jews and the blood and sweat of thousands of idealistic Zionists reclaimed that land and turned it into prime real estate with flourishing farms and rapidly growing com­munities sporting modern technology and a healthy market economy. As a result, Arab migrants poured into the region from surrounding states, with hundreds of thousands seeking a better life and greater economic opportunity. Based on the above, it is fair to suggest that a significant plurality, if not a majority, of Arabs living in Israel today owe their very existence to the Zionist endeavor.

sheikh yusuf al-Quradawi

Validation of this history, which is quite at variance with the standard Arab propaganda, comes from a surprising source. Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradhawi, international Arab terrorist and lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, in a televised speech in May, 2005, chided his fol­lowers with the following words: “Unfortunately, we [Arabs] do not excel in either military or civil industries. We import everything from needles to missiles…How come the Zionist gang has managed to be superior to us, despite being so few? It has become superior through knowledge, through technology, and through strength. It has become superior to us through work. We had the desert before our eyes but we didn’t do anything with it. When they took over, they turned it into a green oasis. How can a nation that does not work progress? How can it grow?” (More academic validation can be found in Palestinian-born Professor Rashid Khalidi’s “Palestinian Identity”, in Kimmerling, B., and Migdal, J. The Palestinian People, and in the as yet unpublished doctoral thesis of Dr. Sandi Sufian, a Palestinian now doing post-doctoral work at the University of Chicago.)

It was precisely this success of the Zionist endeavor that aroused the fear and ire of Arab leaders. Zionist progress, technology, econo­my, and the Jews’ willingness to share this technology with their Arab neighbors radically threatened the medieval stranglehold of the effendi over the fellahin (peasantry). Turkish methods of insuring tranquil­ity under the Sultan were rather draconian. Consequently, as part of the Turkish Empire, the Arabs in the region did not wish to risk civil disturbance, and therefore maintained a stoic sufferance of the Jewish presence that some have interpreted as tolerance. But the British rule that followed the First World War was not so severe. When Britain took over the governance of British Mandatory Palestine (today the states of Israel and Jordan), Arab leaders discovered they had a much freer hand. Stoking religious hatred and fanning the flames of fellah resentment with lies about the Jews’ intent to destroy Islam, repre­sentatives of the leading effendi families led by the Hajj Amin el­Husseini began an Islamic jihad involving a series of pogroms against the Jews.

Peel Partition Plan

From 1919 to 1936, Arab violence against Jews expanded in scope and grew in brutality. The British did almost nothing to curtail it and sometimes abetted it. Lord Earl Peel led a commission of inquiry in 1936 with the goal of finding a solution to the seemingly endless violence. His suggestion was partition. Let the Jews have their state on the 15% of lands that they have purchased and redeemed. Let the Arabs have theirs on the remaining 85%. In other words, the very idea of partition became an agenda because the Arabs could not live peacefully beside Jews.

In 1922, Britain ceded all of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River to the emir Abdullah. This became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with a majority Palestinian population that by law permitted no Jew to enter. When offered their own state in 1937 on roughly 85% of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River, the Arab leaders chose war and terrorism. This was the “Great Arab Revolt” of 1937-1939. With World War II in the offing, Britain lost no time in brutally crushing the uprising.

palestine after 1922

Meanwhile, the pioneering Zionist endeavor continued with the purchase of more crown land from the British. It is important to note that according to international law, what had been crown land under the Turkish Empire was now legally crown land under the British Mandate. The disposition of that land through legal purchases was well within the rights of the British. It also conformed to the param­eters of international law. When the West emerged victorious from World War II, Zionist organizations owned about 28% of what is today Israel, and private Arab land ownership or British crown land accounted for the rest.

With the end of the war, Arab leadership again promoted violence and terrorism against Jewish settlements and against the British. The majority of Jewish leaders preached restraint and practiced the explo­ration of political solutions via the newly formed United Nations. A minority practiced terrorism against the British and violent reprisals against the Arabs.

UN Partition Plan

Sick of the violence and facing political crises growing out of eco­nomic problems following World War II, the British abandoned most of its empire and decided to place “the Palestine Question” into the hands of the United Nations. In 1947 several UN exploratory missions reached Lord Peel’s conclusion of a decade earlier. On November 29, 1947 the UN declared the existence of two states: a state for the Arabs on about 45% of the land, and the state of Israel for the Jews on about 55%. But more than half of the Jewish portion (60%) was the Negev desert, crown land largely unpopulated and believed to be worthless. The UN Partition Plan (UN Resolution # 181) created unwieldy boundaries between the two nascent states based upon the land ownership and population densities of the two groups.

The Arab states were members of the UN. Their membership presumably entailed a willingness to abide by majority decisions of the newly formed world body. But they did not.

In high-handed defiance of the UN partition plan, they launched a war of aggression which, by their own public rhetoric, was to be a war of annihilation. Their intent was not to correct some border dispute or to reclaim turf lost in an earlier battle. Their intention was

to destroy the newly created State of Israel, and to dispatch by whatever means necessary its 605,000 Jews.

To their everlasting chagrin, the Arab states lost their war of aggression. In losing, moreover, they lost much of the territory that the UN had designated for the state of Palestine. However, even this remainder of what would have been Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) was obliterated – by its two neighboring Arab states. Egypt maintained illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank. Both actions were in high-handed defiance of international law and UN resolutions 181 and 194. There was no Arab or Palestinian protest over this. Why? The only conclu­sion that can be drawn is that in 1949, the Palestinians didn’t consider themselves “Palestinians” but Arabs, and in fact the term “Palestine” was universally used to refer to the Jewish state.

To add to the Arabs’ embarrassment, Israel offered them in 1949 a formal peace treaty in exchange for which Israel would return much of the land conquered in the war and allow the repatriation of some substantive portion of the Arab refugees created by the war (Rhodes Armistice talks, February – July, 1949). Had the Arab nations been willing to accept the UN partition plan, or had they been willing to accept the Israeli peace offer, not only would a State of Palestine have existed since 1949, but there would never have been an Arab refugee problem.

However, the Arab response was: no peace. The refugees would return to their homes only when they could fly the flag of Palestine over the corpses of the Jews. Better Palestinians should rot in squalid refugee camps than that the Arabs should acknowledge a non-Moslem state in their midst. As in 1937, Arab leaders rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state in favor of continued aggression against Israel. It was not the creation of the State of Israel that caused the refugee and other subsequent problems; it was the war of annihilation waged by the Arab states that created the refugees and rejected the second opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Pre-1967 Terrorism Against Israel

From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching about 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip. The 1956 “Sinai campaign”, in which Israel defeated the Egyptian army, ended Egypt’s terror war, even though the United States forced Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt without a peace treaty. But the terror continued on other fronts.

In 1964, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was created – not to liberate Palestinians from Jordanian and Egyptian rule – but to begin a 40-year campaign of terror against Israel with the openly avowed goal of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Sponsored first by Kuwait, and later by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and others, the PLO leaders declared unending war against Israel until all of “Palestine” was liberated, redeemed in “fire and blood”.

From 1949 to 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The “Palestine” that Arafat sought to “redeem” was not the West Bank or Gaza, where Palestinians were the abject subjects of Jordanian and Egyptian rule, but the entire State of Israel within its 1949 “green line” borders. It is instructive to read the original 1964 version of the PLO Covenant: Article 24. “This Organization (the PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.”

Since the PLO’s original Covenant explicitly recognized Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as belonging to other Arab states, the only “homeland” it sought to “liberate” in 1964 was the state that belonged to the Jews. Three years later in 1967, five Arab states – including Jordan — attacked Israel. As a result of Israel’s victory in the war Israel now occupied the West Bank having defeated the Jordanian aggressor, who had illegally annexed the West Bank 18 years earlier. The PLO’s response to these events was to revise its Covenant, which it did on July 17, 1968. It removed the operative language of Article 24, thereby asserting for the first time a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In other words, the Palestinian claim is asserted only against Jews.

The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian control of the Gaza Strip were typified by brutal totalitarian repression. In the words of Arafat himself, in 1948 the Egyptians herded Palestinians into refugee camps, kept them behind barbed wire, sent in spies to murder the Palestinian leaders, and executed those who tried to flee. (Yassir Arafat in his authorized biography, “Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker”, by Alan Hart, 1982). There were no Palestinian protests of this oppression or behalf of any selfdetermination they felt they had been denied.

Belated Palestinian Nationalism

The reason why there was no agitation among Palestinians for their own national identity prior to 1967 is perfectly clear. The con­cept of Palestine as a nation and Palestinians as a separate people did not exist among the Arabs of the Turkish provinces that became British Mandatory Palestine after World War I. Despite the contorted, forced, and contrived narratives of apologists for the Palestinian war against Israel like Rashid Khalidi, Baruch Kimmerling and others, there was never any state called Palestine, no country inhabited by “Palestinians”, and before 1967 no concept of a separate political, cul­tural, or linguistic entity representing a defined group that could be identified by such an appellation.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Arab respondents to the UN’s 1947 inquiries argued that there never was, nor should there ever be, a Palestine. The area under discussion they claimed was historically part of southern Syria, and for centuries had been known as “balad esh-sham” (the country of Damascus). In fact, at that time, the term “Palestinian” was applied only to the Jews living in Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the region were known as “Arabs”.

In a March 31, 1977 interview with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Dagblad de Verdieping Trouw, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhse’in said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Even today, Syrian 5th Grade social studies textbooks show “Greater Syria” as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. There is no nation called Palestine. The concept of “Palestinians” as Arabs living for millennia in “historic Palestine” is a fiction created for the politi­cal and military purposes described by Zahir Muhse’in. This latter day frenzy of Palestinian agitations for national self-determination is simply the faux mantle of respectability behind which genocidal Arab terrorism can be perpetrated against Israel with the support of international do-gooders and “idealists.” After the Holocaust, Western liberals cannot look kindly upon genocidal terrorism; but they can embrace warmly and enthusiastically the deep and heartfelt yearnings of an oppressed people struggling to be free. Hence, Arafat’s terrorist propagandists needed to invent the lies of Palestinian National Identity and Israeli occupation and oppression.

greater syria plan

The Six-Day War of 1967

Contrary to current Arab propaganda, but congruent with all news accounts contemporary to the events, Israel was the victim of Arab genocidal aggression in the 1967 War. On May 15, 1967, Egypt demanded that the UN peacekeeping forces, in place since the Sinai Campaign, evacuate at once. UN Secretary General U-Thant, for reasons never fully clarified, complied at once. Then, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, blocking the Israeli port of Eilat for shipping, and moved two tank battalions and 150,000 troops right up to Israel’s western border. A military pact with Syria and Jordan and illegal invasion of Israel’s air space for surveillance over-flights of the Israeli atomic reactor in Dimona rounded out the threats. These were five casus belli: actions defined in international law as so threatening to a sovereign state that each one creates a legitimate cause for defensive military response. Had Israel retaliated with lethal force after any one of these five, its military action would have been completely legal per international law, as legitimate defensive response to existential threats from an aggressor.

However, Israel did not retaliate immediately. It first tried politi­cal negotiations, but its complaints to the UN went unanswered. Its reminders to President Johnson that the United States had guaranteed in 1957 to intervene if the Straits of Tiran were ever closed, or if Egypt ever re-militarized the Sinai, fell on deaf ears. President Johnson was too heavily involved in the Vietnam war to consider American military action elsewhere, even though President Eisenhower, when he forced PM Ben Gurion to retreat from the Sinai after the phenom­enally successful Sinai Campaign in 1956, had promised America’s eternal vigilance that Israel would not again face a military threat from Egypt.

After three weeks of watching the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian forces grow in size and strength on its borders, Israel tried one last diplomatic action. Via the UN commander of the peace-keeping forc­es in Jerusalem, Colonel Od Bul (a Norwegian), Israel’s government sent a written message to King Hussein of Jordan: if you do not invade Israel, Israel will not invade the West Bank. Jordan’s King supercil­iously tossed the note back to Colonel Od Bul and walked away.

On Monday, June 5, 1967, after receiving military intelligence that Egypt was within hours of launching an invasion via the Gaza Strip, Israel launched its defensive pre-emptive strike, an air attack that destroyed the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria while they were still on the ground. With the control of the skies firmly in Israel’s hand, its armor and infantry put Egyptian forces to flight, reaching the Suez Canal within two days.

Despite Israel’s warning, King Hussein of Jordan began an artil­lery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line. After more than a day of bombardment, with scores of Israelis dead, hundreds wounded, and millions of dollars of dam­ages, Israel sent a second message to the Hashemite king: if you stop the bombardment now, we will consider it your politically necessary ‘salvo of honor’; and we will not retaliate. This message was sent via the Romanian embassy, from its West Jerusalem (Israeli) ambassador to its East Jerusalem (Jordanian) ambassador. King Hussein ignored the warning and launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem. It was only then that Israel responded with its own invasion of the West Bank.

Israel soldiers after the battle for East-Jerusalem

After almost a week of Syria’s constant artillery bombardment of Israeli towns and villages in the Galilee, Israel conquered the Golan Heights, destroyed the Syrian artillery, and drove the Syrian army back to within 40 kilometers of Damascus.

Israel did not invade Egypt beyond the Suez Canal, although its forces could have advanced almost unopposed to Cairo. It did not cross the Jordan River, although the Jordan Legion was in disarray, as some troops had tossed their boots and rifles to more easily swim to the east bank. Nor did it continue its advance from the Golan Heights to Damascus, which it could have easily done in the wake of a ter­rified and decimated Syrian army. Israel stopped its advance on all three fronts after it had achieved its military objectives: the destruc­tion of the armies that threatened its existence, and the establishment of defensible borders.

International Law and Israeli Sovereignty

Even one of the most critical of Israel’s historians, Professor Avi Schlaim, acknowledges that Israel was the victim of Arab aggression in the Six Day War. This is a crucial point in regard to the issue of Israeli settlements in and sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. International law is very clear. Had Israel been the aggressor, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would have been illegal, as would all future expansion of Israeli population into these territories.

However, as the victim of aggression, Israel’s legal position is exactly the opposite. The legal disposition of territories conquered in a defensive war can be determined only by a peace treaty between the belligerents. If such a peace treaty is absent, the continued sovereignty and economic activities of the victim of aggression over its newly won territories is completely legal as long as such activity does not unfavorably prejudice the indigenous inhabitants. In fact Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip was beneficial, as we shall see, until their administration was turned over to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements.

Immediately after the war, Israel offered to return conquered ter­ritory in exchange for a formal peace. The Arab nations rejected this offer, as they rejected similar offers after the previous Arab-initiated wars. Israel could legally have annexed all the newly won territories, but chose not to because it expected that eventually the aggressor nations would come to their senses and want their land back, and Israel would return some of these territories to their former occupiers in exchange for peace.

begin en sadat in 1979

Israel did exactly this with Egypt, returning all of Sinai at the Camp David I accords in 1979. In these accords Egyptian leader Anwar es-Sadat refused to accept the Gaza Strip back, preferring that the Palestinians who lived there remain under Israeli sovereignty. When Jordan agreed to a peace treaty in 1994, King Hussein spe­cifically excluded the West Bank from consideration, because by then 96% of Palestinians in the area were under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, and Hussein conceded that he had no legal claim to the area or its Arab population.

In sum, Israel is the only known country in all of history to come into existence via legal and beneficial land development (as opposed to the almost universal method of conquest). Israel’s victory in the 1948 war and in the 1967 war, in which it was the victim of genocidal aggression, and the refusal of Arab nations to join it in peace negotiations, give Israel the legal right to maintain its sovereignty over its newly won territories, and to develop those territories in any manner that is not prejudicial to the well-being of the indigenous civilians. Had Arab leaders been amenable to peace with Israel, there could have been a Palestinian state in 1937, and again in 1947, and again in 1949; and there would never have been an Arab refugee problem. Had Arab leadership in 1967 and again in 2000 been amenable to peace with Israel, there would never have been a continued Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

With this historical framework in place, one can understand the real issues behind the controversy over Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the legal status of the settlements.

–

THE SETTLEMENTS

There are five types of settlements: A. Agrarian settlements for military purposes manned mostly by soldiers; B. Settlements of Jews returning to sites occupied by Jews prior to 1948 (Hebron, Gush Etzion, Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem); C. Expanding suburbs of Israeli cities on or near the “Green Line;” D. Settlements unrelated to the previous three types; E. Illegal rogue settlements

settlements westbank

A. Settlements for Military Purposes

Agrarian settlements manned by IDF soldiers were established soon after the war along what the IDF felt were crucial corridors of defense, especially along the Jordan river, near the “Green Line,” in the Golan Heights, and near Gaza. Because Egypt, Syria and Jordan remained belligerent states for decades after the war, and because the PLO was actively trying to develop bases for terrorism in the newly conquered territories, and because Israel had previously been invaded across these territories, these settlements were intended primarily to serve a strategic military defensive purpose.

The Alon plan, developed by General Yigal Alon shortly after the war, envisioned a series of these military-agrarian settlements (referred to as “nahal” in Hebrew) protecting strategic areas along the Jordan river (it is important to recall that the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was in a de iure state of war with Israel until 1994) and across parts of the West Bank where surveillance and the potential for rapid military deployment were deemed essential for security purposes.

In several cases, where Palestinian farmers utilized the Israeli court system to lodge complaints that the army was unnecessarily taking land without proper military purpose, the Israeli High Court of Justice decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The army site at Beth El (near Ramallah) is the best-known case, and probably one of the few cases in all of world history where the legal system of the victorious country decided in favor of the defeated, contrary to the security­ related demands of the army. The IDF was forced to move its base about ten kilometers further west, to accommodate the land claims of the local Palestinians.

allon plan

B. Settlements of Jews Returning To Their Pre-1948 Homes

Settlement of civilian Israelis in the West Bank began shortly after the 1967 war, with a small group of Orthodox Jews setting up a few households in the former Jewish section of Hebron, followed by a larger re-settling of Jews in the rapidly reconstructed Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem. Jews had lived in Hebron almost continuously since the days of Joshua, 3100 years ago, and were expelled only during the horrific Arab pogroms of 1929 in which hundreds were slaughtered. Jewish habitation in Jerusalem had a similar millennia-long history, with the 1948 war and the massacre of about half of the population of the Jewish Quarter terminating Jewish presence there.

hebron massacre of jews

Later, Jews resettled the villages of the Kfar Etzion area (aka Gush Etzion) southwest of Bethlehem. Since this area had been extensively settled and developed in the early part of the 20th century by Zionist pioneers, and mobs of Arab irregulars had massacred most of the Jews of these villages during the 1948 war, the return of Israelis to these sites created additional Type B settlements.

C: Settlements Expanding Suburbs of Israeli Cities On Or Near The “Green Line”

Unoccupied areas around Jerusalem and to the east of Kfar Saba and Netania (near Tel Aviv) and to the northeast of Petah Tiqvah were used as sites for major building projects that created low cost housing for the expanding populations of the Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv areas. In most cases, the land utilized for these projects was Jordanian ‘Crown Land’, land to which no individual could lay claim of private owner­ship. In the absence of Jordan’s willingness to enter into peace nego­tiations after the war, Israel’s expropriation of these unoccupied areas was legal in as much as Israel’s sovereignty, having been created via defensive actions against an aggressor nation (Jordan), was legal.

In cases where West Bank Arabs legally owned land that Israel wanted for these expansion projects, Israel bought the land at fair market prices. Land sale to Israel was fairly active throughout the decades after the Six-day war. So much so that when the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, Arafat declared that sale of land to Jews was a capital offense; and as a result, Palestinian families who had benefited from these sales were suddenly in mortal danger and some were forced to flee the West Bank.

The rapid growth in Jerusalem’s Jewish population after the war presented the Israeli government with both a problem and a solution of considerable political valence. Areas of dense Jewish settlement were developed in order to accommodate this growth, and these settlements were used to surround Jerusalem, such that the 1948-1967 phenom­enon of a “Jerusalem Corridor” (where Jerusalem was surrounded on three-and-a-half sides by hostile Arab towns and villages with access to other Israeli areas restricted to only one narrow road) would not be re-created in the context of a future peace agreement with the Arabs. The outlying areas (French Hill, Ammunition Hill, Gilo, Ma’aleh Adumim, Har Homah, inter alia) were turned into hi-rise suburbs that expanded the city’s perimeter and accommodated the burgeoning population. Of these, only Gilo was built on privately owned land. A Christian family in Beit Jalla sold the hilltop site to the municipality of Jerusalem in 1974.

D: Settlements Unrelated to the Previous Three Types

Over time, religious and right wing political pressure supported the creation of settlements elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza. Under Prime Ministers Begin and Rabin, these settlements prolifer­ated. Often they were founded near ancient Jewish holy sites, such as Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus (Biblical Shechem).

Arab spokespersons claim that these settlements, some of which were built well inside the West Bank or Gaza areas, stole land from Arab farmers. Israel claims that most land used for these developments was unoccupied and un-owned, thus qualifying as ‘Crown Land’ on which Israel had full legal right to build and develop. Where privately owned land was needed for settlement expansion, Israel claims to have purchased that land from its legal owners at fair market values.

There was considerable debate in the Israeli government and society at large as to whether allowing these Type D settlements to be developed was productive in the context of Israel’s long-term goal of achieving peace. Ultimately, the government felt that creating “uvdot bashetah” (facts in the field – settlements that were there, liter­ally in concrete, with buildings, populations, agrarian and industrial activities, connected by efficient infra-structure to the pre-1967 Israeli areas) would be useful as bagaining chips in future negotiations.

E: Illegal Rogue Settlements

Illegal Rogue Settlements were set up by break-away settlers, often contrary to IDF and/or government instructions, sometimes on privately owned Palestinian land. Palestinian complaints about such illegal land grabs have been adjudicated in the Israeli court system with decisions not infrequently in favor of the Palestinians. These settlements, whether on illegally taken land or not, are considered illegal by many in Israel. Some have been forcibly dismantled. This is a very emotional issue in Israel, with mostly orthodox Jews demanding that all Jews be allowed to settle anywhere in the Promised Land (especially anywhere in the region where Abraham lived: i.e., the West Bank from Shechem/Nablus to Hebron). Anti-settlement sentiment among Israelis (especially the non-religious) is spurred in large part by these rogue sites; and it is almost exclusively this type of settlement on the West Bank that Prime Minister Sharon has considered dismantling even before peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

The Legality of the Settlements

Anti-settlement spokespersons (Arab, Israeli and other) have repeatedly branded the settlements as illegal in accordance with the 4th Geneva Convention and international law. However, even a superficial review of the relevant elements of international law dem­onstrates that this interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a typical example of Orwellian “doublespeak”. It is precisely international law, the Geneva Convention, and relevant UN resolutions that define these settlements as legal.

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition of exiling conquered populations and settling populations from the conqueror’s territory into conquered territories pertains to territory conquered in an offensive war. These sections of the Convention were written to deter future actions like those of the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WWII. Since Israel acquired sovereignty over the territories in a defensive war, it is highly questionable whether these prohibitions apply. The fact that the belligerent opponent (Jordan) remained at war (until 1994) meant that the conquered population was potentially hostile. Moreover, Israel never exiled any Arabs from anywhere in the territories (except in 1992 when it deported about 400 terrorists to south Lebanon in an attempt to stop terror activities).

On the contrary, because of Israel’s policies of ‘open bridges’ across the Jordan (although Jordan was still in a state of declared war with Israel), Arabs migrated into Israel in vast numbers, and the Arab population of the West Bank tripled, from about 650,000 in 1967 to more than 2,000,000 in 1994, with a commensurate increase in Arab settlements (some estimates suggest that as many as 260 new Arab villages or expansions of existing sites occurred during this time).

It is obvious therefore, that Israeli settlement activity not only did nothing to infringe on the well being of the indigenous population; rather, that activity actually created the beneficial economic environ­ment into which hundreds of thousands of Arabs could integrate.

UN Charter

Regarding territory conquered in a defensive action, the Charter of the League of Nations (the same one which gave Britain the right to establish a Mandatory Government over Palestine and which declared that British Mandatory Palestine was to be the homeland of the Jewish people) indicates that the disposition of such territory will be part of the peace treaty between the warring parties. In the absence of such a treaty, the disposition of these territories remains in dispute. Such territories should be referred to as “disputed territories,” not “occupied territories.” Their continued occupation by the defensive party is legal. Since the wars in 1948 and 1967 were defensive, Israel’s occupation of territories beyond the l947 partition boundaries and 1949 armistice boundaries is completely legal. The Charter of the United Nations accepts, and with no authority to change it, the Charter of the League of Nations. So the League of Nations Charter is still international law, and offers a congruent and rational balance to the 4th Geneva Convention (i.e., the Charter describes the rights of a nation occupy­ing territory in a defensive action, and the Convention describes the limitations placed upon a nation occupying territory in an offensive action). Both are valid under international law.

It is also legal for the defensive party maintaining occupation in the absence of a peace treaty to take necessary measures to main­tain security. Thus Nahal settlements (for military reasons) are legal according to international law.

International law is also clear that populations that had been dis­possessed from their ancestral homes by an offensive action have the right to re-settle their homes when a successful defensive action re­captures the land from which they were driven out. Thus the return of Jews to Hebron, Gush Etzion, and the Jewish Quarter is also legal under international law.

UN Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) makes it clear that the purpose of the resolution is to create a just and lasting peace, with guarantees for the territorial inviolability, mutually recognized bor­ders, and political independence of every state in the area. According to Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of 242, the plain meaning of the resolution is that Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza is completely legal until a just and lasting peace is achieved. Such administration, in the absence of a peace treaty, and in the face of continued hostility from Arab nations and terrorist groups, can include the development of unoccupied segments for housing a grow­ing population. Such activity is not the same as transporting popula­tion to the territory for resettlement. So the third type of settlement (C) is also legal.

Type D Settlements are more complex. Nothing in the Geneva Convention prohibits voluntary development of the disputed territo­ries. What is prohibited is forced deportations and organized displace­ment of original populace by a forced settlement of the conquering population. So, to the degree that settlements of Type D are a func­tion of voluntary Israeli settling in areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip without the sequestering of Palestinian land and the removal of Palestinian population, these Type D settlements are legal. Moreover, since the West Bank and Gaza were never legally part of any sovereign nation (they were part of British Mandatory Palestine till November 29, 1947, were intended by the UN to be part of a Palestinian State, and were over-run and illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in the 1948 war, in stark and defiant violation of the UN partition plan, UN resolutions 181 and 194, and international law), Israel’s occupation of these territories after the 1967 war does not violate the legal claims of any nation.

However, since some privately owned Palestinian land was taken by government fiat, and it could be argued that either by complicity or by design the Israeli government sponsored these settlements (thus making it more of a government plan rather than a voluntary settle­ment), it seems fair to say that Type D settlements, although legal according to the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant UN resolu­tions, may be in a gray area morally.

Rogue settlements (Type E) are palpably illegal. Israeli govern­ment officials have referred to them as “rogue” settlements, IDF forces have dismantled some, and Prime Minister Sharon has targeted some for a similar fate.

Impact of Settlements On Arab Population

The impact of Israeli settlements (excluding rogue settlements) has been almost exactly the opposite of what the Arab propaganda claims.

It is important to note that from 1967 to 1992, the population and economy of the West Bank grew substantially. The standard of living of the Palestinians, as well as the average per capita income, increased almost exponentially. This was in part due to the Israeli “Marshall Plan”, which expanded the infra-structure, modernized roads and the supplies of water, electricity, and sewerage, and made 20th century medical care available. Telephone and radio technology was upgraded to 20th century levels. Economic progress was also due in part to the integration of the Palestinian workforce into the Israeli economy by the employment of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in a wide variety of Israeli business and agricultural endeavors.

The growth of tourism throughout the West Bank was a further boost to the area’s economy. The population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip more than tripled from 1967 to 1994, with an Arab popu­lation of about 950,000 in 1967 growing to more than 3,000,000 by 1994. Seven universities, some sponsored in part by Jewish donors and the Israeli government, came into being where only three teacher­training institutions had existed before.

Rather than displacing Palestinians, the Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank stimulated substantial growth and improvement. It has been noted that when an Israeli settlement of any of the first 4 types was erected, areas around it that were hitherto uninhabited became foci for Palestinian shops selling agricultural goods and cottage industry wares to the Israelis. Later, Palestinian houses followed the shops.

Moreover, during the decades after 1967, there were no road­blocks or lock-downs or curfews (except on rare occasions when the Israeli military or central intelligence agencies learned of the presence of terrorists in a specific village or town). West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs shopped in Tel Aviv, and Jews shopped in east Jerusalem and Ramallah.

It is only since 1994, when 96% of Palestinians living in Israel came under the autonomous and independent control of the Palestinian National Authority, that the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been crippled and the lives of the Palestinians wrecked by the Authority’s despotic and terrorist rule. The West Bank’s GDP in 2003 was about one-tenth of what it was in 1992. Only because of Arafat’s terror war was Israel forced to implement now infamous and wildly exaggerated harsh measures to stop terror attacks and protect civilian lives.

It is also important to note that the so-called “apartheid roads” did not exist prior to Arafat’s 1994 ascent to power, nor are they apartheid. During the decades from 1967 on, Israelis and Arabs used the same roads, many of which ran as main streets through the towns and villages of the West Bank, bringing in millions of tourist dol­lars to hitherto impoverished small-town Arab merchants. Only after Arafat began his terror war, and Israelis driving through Arab towns found themselves in mortal danger, did Israel build the “Israelis only” (not “Jews only”) roads. Rather than take punitive measures against Arab offenders who murdered or injured Israeli motorists (Jewish, Christian, and Moslem), the government decided instead to create this by-pass system so that Israelis could reach West Bank and Gaza Strip destinations without exposing themselves to terrorist attacks.

In sum, until Arafat began his terror war, the growth of the Israeli population in the West Bank and Gaza, and the expansion of Israeli villages and towns in those territories, was highly beneficial economi­cally for the West Bank and Gaza Arab populations, did not entail significant loss of Arab privately owned land, offered legal recourse to the rare cases of unfair expropriation, and was accompanied by a far, far greater growth of Arab population and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Role of the Settlements in the Peace Process

The role of the settlements in the context of the current conflict, and in the contentious issue of applying the “Road Map” to future peace negotiations, is perhaps the most complex and difficult issue to deal with. This is precisely because Arab propaganda has been so effective in establishing as axiomatic that the settlements are:

a.).    Illegal

b).    A symptom of Israel’s intent on conquest of Palestinian land and are thus inherently an obstacle to peace

c.)    A harbinger of Israel’s permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and hence make territorial compromise impossible

d).    Signal Israel’s inherently obvious unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace.

Therefore, it will be most useful to look at these Arab contentions, and see how they correspond to historical reality.

Are the settlements illegal? We have already seen that they are not.

Are the settlements an obstacle to peace? From 1949-1967 there were no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Nor was there peace. Arab belligerence was unrelated to West Bank and Gaza settle­ments. The settlements to which the Arabs objected at that time were Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hadera, Afula, etc.

In June, 1967, immediately after the Six Day War, and before there were any Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel proposed its dramatic peace initiative both at the UN and in sub rosa talks with Jordan. This initiative was rejected by all Arab states and the PLO at the Khartoum Conference in August-September, 1967. The obstacle to peace was the very existence of Israel, not settlements in the West Bank.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israeli settlements in Sinai were evacuated. In the context of a peace treaty, settlements are negotiable, can be, and were, dismantled.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israel froze settlement expansion for three months, in order to encourage entry of Jordan into the Egypt-Israel peace process. Jordan refused. The freezing of settle­ments did not stimulate peaceful interaction. Arafat (then engaged in creating a terrorist state in south Lebanon) was invited to join Egypt at the peace talks, and this settlement freeze was intended to encour­age his participation. He refused. The existence of settlements in Sinai did not interfere with the Israel-Egypt peace accords; and the freeze on settlement activities did not encourage Jordan or the PLO to enter into peace accords.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, while settle­ments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were growing in size and increasing in number. The existence and expansion of the settlements in no way impaired the peace process with Jordan.

Do the settlements make territorial compromise impossible? The accords discussed at Madrid, Wye, Oslo and Taba all include the acknowledgement that settlements (a few, some, many, prob­ably not all) will be dismantled in the context of a peace agreement. Those accords were discussed while settlements were expanding. Settlements did not impede negotiation then.

Currently, about 250,000 Jews live in a total of 144 communities scattered through the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 80% of them could be brought within Israel’s pre-1967 borders with only a very minor re­arranging of “green line” boundaries.

Part of Barak’s offer to Arafat in 2000 was the exchange of land such that the Palestinians would be compensated for the small num­ber of settlements that would not be dismantled by the ceding of Israeli land within the pre-1967 boundaries to the Palestine National Authority. This offer was in addition to the approximately 95% of all the disputed land in the West Bank and 100% of the territory in Gaza which were to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Arafat rejected this offer, much to the surprise and chagrin of President Clinton.

Does Israel’s violation of international accords by building the settlements show Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace? In regard to the Geneva Convention and UN Resolution 242, we have seen that the settlements do not constitute violations of international law. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The Camp David accords called for a 3-month moratorium on settlements. Prime Minister Menahem Begin kept this agreement.

The Oslo Accords say nothing about settlements. It was tacitly and informally agreed upon that a moratorium on settlements would be one of 16 “confidence building” measures that Israel and the PNA would undertake. The provision about not changing the “status” of the territories refers to the agreement that neither side would unilaterally annex the areas (or declare them an independent state). In the pres­ence of glaring, overt, and provocative violations of every one of the Oslo Accords by the Palestine National Authority almost immediately after its signing, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government felt itself under no obligation to maintain the tacit informal agreement. Since the Palestine National Authority was not building confidence by end­ing terrorist attacks (it was actually behind them), why should Israel compromise its security and position for future negotiation?

While Israel has built a total of 144 settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, more than 260 new Palestinian settlements have been constructed. These serve as testimony to the flourishing of the West Bank’s economy and the growth of Palestinian population under Israeli control (1967-1994), contrary to the Arab allegations that Israel has perpetrated genocide and crippled the economy of the West Bank. By what logic would anyone suggest that these Palestinian settlements are any less a threat to negotiations or a change of status of the ter­ritories than are the Israeli ones?

Summing up: All the settlements except those of the rogue variety are legal. Their growth and expansion have contributed substantially to the economic improvement of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. When there were no settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, no territorial compromises or peace settlements were reached. Later ter­ritorial compromises and peace agreements have been reached despite the existence of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel’s settlements violate no international accords. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prevent peace. Rather, it is the unwillingness of the Palestine National Authority to control the Arab terror groups, to stop the incitement and to negotiate honestly, that makes compromise impossible.

What About Unilateral Withdrawl?

Part of the intent in creating “uvdot bashetakh” (facts in the field) was to create “bargaining chips” for future negotiations. They are one of the issues that Israel will negotiate. That is clearly what Netanyahu and Barak had in mind when they encouraged settlement expansion following Arafat’s violations of the Oslo Accords. There is no rational justification for a one-sided curtailment of population growth when the other side maintains a state of war despite the agreement to curtail violence.

The security needs that prompted the Alon Plan and militarily warranted settlements still exist; especially in light of the surge of terror activities sponsored openly by Hamas and at least 9 other ter­ror groups operating in Israel. In addition, these needs exist in light of many terrorist factions and Arab states that refuse to consider any peace with Israel, that continue to perpetrate Jew-hatred in media and education, and that continue to promulgate the goals of Hamas and other terror groups for the total destruction of Israel. The settlements and IDF presence in the major Arab population clusters of the West Bank reduce substantially the ability of terror groups to successfully launch their attacks. Unilateral withdrawal enhances the ability of the terror groups to wage terror war.

Any unilateral dismantling of settlements is likely to be inter­preted by the Palestine National Authority and terrorist leadership as a victory for terrorism. This, in fact, is exactly what has happened following Prime Minister Sharon’s decision to unilaterally dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and at the northern part of the West Bank. Terrorist spokespersons rejoice in the apparent success of their terror activity, which they claim is the real motivator for Sharon’s decision, while official Palestinian spokespersons suggest that the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is just another Israeli deception. According to their logic, instead of being a real conces­sion to the Palestinian demand for national self-determination, the unilateral withdrawal is actually aimed at distracting the world and the Palestinian leadership so that Sharon can strengthen his hold on the West Bank and continue to expand Jewish settlement there.

After Oslo, Netanyahu abandoned any thought of a settlement freeze because the Palestine National Authority made clear its intent to disregard Oslo and pursue a policy of unrelenting terror. It is believed by some that part of his purpose in creating more settlements was to send Arafat a clear signal: ‘If you keep doing your anti-Oslo behav­ior, the area that you are likely to end up with as a Palestinian state is going to get smaller and smaller.’ Sounds logical, especially since a military response may have been justified but would have caused world outrage. It didn’t work, even though a number of Palestinian intellectuals and political leaders (most notably, Elyas Freij, mayor of Bethlehem, quoted in the Washington Post in l991) publicly advocated negotiation because the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank made it clear that “time is on Israel’s side now”.

It did not work, probably, because Arafat never intended to negoti­ate. He always intended to perpetrate his long-dreamed final solution of the total destruction of Israel. In his 90-minute cell-phone speech to a Lebanese PLO radio station on April 14, 2002 (from his bedroom of his headquarters in Ramallah which Israel had surrounded and partially destroyed in Operation Defensive Shield), he outlined his strategy. With the help of other Arab states, with the success of Arab propaganda to gradually weaken Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of the world such that UN forces could be deployed to assist the Palestinians and impede the Israelis in a future battle, and with the United States Israel’s only foul-weather friend having moral and political difficulty providing assistance to what was now defined as a rogue nation, the terror armies and their allies could use the West Bank as a launching pad for the great final Jihad against Israel. Arafat’s intent as expressed in that speech has been corroborated by the Israeli destruction of major arms smuggling networks handling hundreds of tons of illegal weaponry and munitions since 2001, most recently the 50 tons of weapons on the ship, the Karine A, and the scores of smuggling tun­nels from Sinai to the Gaza Strip. If this buildup of terror is allowed to continue, it will ultimately compromise the welfare of the entire free world as we know it.

There is no rational justification for a one-sided settlement com­promise when the other side maintains a state of war. Unilateral with­drawal enhances the ability of the terrorists to wage terror war. In light of the unrelenting commitment of terror groups and Mahmoud Abbas’ frequent public statements commending the terror groups, defining their casualties as martyrs, and vowing to never use force against them, it is irrational to suggest that further Israeli concessions will generate a Palestinian willingness to reciprocate. In fact, the opposite has happened. The failure of Camp David II was due in large part to Arafat’s strategy of pocketing Barak’s concessions, making no sub­stantive concessions in return, and then demanding more from Barak (see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace, 2005).

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip and removed all Israeli settlements from the area, along with all 8,500 Jewish settlers. In addition, Israel dismantled settlements at the north­ern part of the West Bank. Israel had made an historically unprec­edented concession in an attempt to jump-start the peace process, and demonstrate to the Palestinians that it was willing to trade land for peace. Yet, there was no movement on the part of any Palestinian leader to reciprocate. Instead there were terrorist leaders on Arab TV, radio, newspapers, all declaring that the withdrawal was a great victory for Arab terrorism, and that the terrorist attacks must escalate so that Israel could be annihilated and all of Palestine “liberated.” In other words, the problem is not the settlements. They were dismantled. The problem is the existence of Jews in the land between the Jordan River and the sea, and the commitment of the Arab terrorist leadership to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its people.

gaza: homeland of militant Muslims

CONCLUSION:

The most famous recent episode of the rejection of the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state and the resolution of the refugees problem was in the year 2000 when the PA Chairman Arafat rebuffed President Clinton’s most generous offer and initiated a cruel intifada against Israel. At that time, the Israeli Prime Minister Barak, hop­ing to end the protracted conflict with the Arabs, accepted the offer despite the fact that it would have forced Israel to make extremely painful concessions.

Most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are legal and violate no international laws or relevant UN resolutions. Most do not involve the theft of any Palestinian land. The settlement movement has provided enormous benefit to the Arabs of those areas and fueled a tripling of the Arab population and a skyrocketing West Bank economy — until the onset of Arafat’s rule. Settlements do not create stumbling blocks to peace or hindrances to peace negotiations. They can be, and have been, dismantled in the context of negotiations with an honest peace partner. Concessions about settlements should be made only in the context of negotiations, which can begin only after Palestinian leadership stops the violence, ends the terror war, and ends the hate speech, hate preach, and hate teach that have permeated Palestinian society since 1994.

Now that, painfully and unilateraly, Israel has relinquished all the settlements in the Gaza Strip and in the Northern part of the West Bank, it will be even easier for the Palestinians to demonstrate if they intend to proceed toward peace. Their actions so far are not very promising.

There is no issue relating to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that could not be settled honorably to mutual satisfaction at the negotiating table between honest peace partners negotiating in good faith. The question of the remaining settlements is a matter for final status negotiations.

The simple fact is that no sovereign state would ever be expected to do otherwise.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli currently living in Palo Alto, California. He holds a BA from Johns  Hopkins University, and an MA in Near Eastern Studies from Brandeis University. He taught Archaeology and Near  Eastern History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and at the University of Tel Aviv in the 60’s and 70’s, during  which time he completed his service in the Israeli military. Upon returning to the USA, Mr. Meir-Levi has worked as a     professional Jewish educator, most recently in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Mr. Meir-Levi is the Director of Research and Education at the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI), a grass-roots not-for-profit organization in the San Francisco Bay area working to educate the American public and its leaders in to the history of the Arab-Israel conflict and realistic options for resolution. For more information about IPI, see: Israel Peace Initiative.

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel (part 1)
2. Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel (part 2)
3. The World’s Latest Anti-Israel Lies, Injustice, Bias, Prejudice, Hatred and Hypocrisy

Khaled Mashaal makes it clear that Hamas is determined to continue the path of “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) and that “other statements are political maneuvers.” He reveals that Hamas uses most of its financial resources in the Gaza Strip for military purposes rather than rebuilding.

1. Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, recently revealed  the movement’s political positions. On November 12, meeting with a number of senior participants at a conference of Arab parties in Damascus, he repeatedly stressed that Hamas would continue the path of “resistance” (i.e., terrorism), and noted that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts in the Gaza Strip were invested in military preparations.

2. The main points he made were the following (according to the Filisteen al-’An website):

a) Hamas will never recognize Israel and will not abandon the “resistance:” “We will not recognize Israel, we will not give up the resistance, we cling to every inch of Palestinian soil, other statements are political maneuvers.” (In Arabic, Munawara)

b) Renewal of terrorism in Judea and Samaria: Opting for a new intifada is difficult but “the jihad continues until Judgment Day.” Hamas was forced to stop the resistance [i.e., terrorism] in the West Bank, its [cessation] was not a decision of the movement. It will take time to renew the “resistance” because objectively, the necessary conditions on the ground do not yet exist.

c) Proposing the establishment of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967: Khaled Mashaal said that his statements in the past, according to which Hamas was prepared to accept a temporary solution of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967, were meant to create a basis for [political] activity and to eliminate excuses for holding a grudge against Hamas. As far as Hamas is concerned, its political view is that “the Oslo accord is dead” and Palestinians have to strengthen their capabilities  [their “cards”], the most potent of which is “the resistance.”

d) Most of Hamas’ efforts in the Gaza Strip are invested in  military preparations: “On the surface, [statements in the Gaza Strip] refer to reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] and rebuilding, however, what is not revealed is that most of Hamas’ funds and efforts are invested in the resistance and military preparations… We are intent on the resistance.”

e) Hamas, which has financial difficulties, needs contributions for the “resistance:” Khaled Mashaal urged the Arab parties to enlist contributions in preparation for the next stage of the “resistance” [i.e., anti-Israeli terrorism], since Hamas is in financial straits. He warned against conditioning financial support for  Hamas on the “resistance’s” carrying out terrorist [attacks] because, he said, “the money is invested in preparing for escalating the ‘resistance’.”

Khaled Mashaal (right), damascus; al-'An website nov 2009

Conclusions

3. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks reflect Hamas’ true priorities, the most important of which is rebuilding its military infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, which was damaged by Operation Cast Lead, in preparation for the renewal of military-terrorist attacks [“the resistance”] against Israel. Hamas’ priorities are expressed by their investing most of the money flowing into the Gaza Strip for Hamas (including funds from Arab and international agencies) to further military preparations at the expense of the civilian rebuilding of the Gaza Strip, which is proceeding slowly.

4. In addition, the remarks made by Khaled Mashaal directly contradict the “smile campaign” he is conducting for the West. He has repeatedly stressed Hamas’ adherence to its strategy of “resistance” as the main means of “liberating” all Palestinian lands, its total refusal to recognize Israel and its readiness to agree to a “temporary solution” in the form of a Palestinian state with the borders of 1967 as a political maneuver to ease Hamas’ political isolation.

5. Khaled Mashaal’s remarks refute one of the main conclusions of the Goldstone Report: The Report accused Israel of responsibility for the distress of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, while it completely ignored the responsibility borne by Hamas. His remarks show that relieving the Gazans’ distress  is not one of Hamas’ main priorities, but rather it invests most of its efforts and resources in military preparations for the next round of anti-Israeli terrorism.

Source: Intelligence Terrorism and Information Center, november 19 2009

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Hamas Promises to Continue Terrorism until Israel Is Destroyed
2. Hamas Calls for the Destruction and Delegitimization of the State of Israel
3. The AKP’s Hamas Policy: “Us vs. Them”

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Who was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeiny and why is it important to make an analysis of his views and writings about Islam?

There’re several reasons for us to do this.

The contemporary influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s ideas and writings on Global Islam and Iran’s foreign policy is widely underestimated by western governments, politicians, NGO’s, media and moderate Muslims. What we are going to show you are the basics and thoughts of a man who not only played a significant role in the overthrowing of the Shah regime of Iran in 1979, but also had his influence on suicide bombing and global jihad against Israel and the West as we know it today. And in saying this, we cannot avoid the subject that the Islam is the only reason for Muslims to participate in global jihad, hatred against Israel and terrorism against unbelievers and the West.

We know that some may argue that these ideas and writings were of a man who lived in a state of middle age Islam, but as you will see that is not the case, although it’s sometimes hard to imagine that a civilized person could hold such idea’s. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeiny was an educated and intelligent man, who pursued his ideal for a world dominated by Islam. And world domination of Islam is not his idea, but the principle of the Quran as given by Muhammad, the Prophet.

So, was it that Ayatollah Khomeini twisted the basics of Islam (as layed out in the Quran and other writings) to favor his ideas and to fulfil his own desire for power? Or did the Islam influenced him so greatly by reading and studying the Quran (and other writings like the hadith), interpreting the verses literally and made him realize that for him to be a pure and good Muslim could mean no other than to radicalize in the most extreme way possible. He did not want to please himself, but to please Allah and create a theocracy, an Islamic God-ruled society.

To translate this to today: is it to blame solely on Ayatollah Khomeini that Iran’s Muhammad Ahmadinejad is seeking the destruction of Israel and pursuing Islamic World Domination or is it to blame on the Islam and the principles of Islam? The answer? Ayatollah Khomeini has undoubtedly had his influence as we going to see later on, but the main problem is the Islam itself, as layed out in the writings of the Quran and others.

Many will call us Islamophobic for saying this, but we only let Ayatollah Khomeini speak for himself and the Quran as well. These words are not ours, but from the Islam and from the followers of the Islam. Many will find this message disturbing, and moderate Muslims will disagree with us, saying that Islam is a religion of peace. But, the thing is, everyday we see this ‘religion of peace’ in action by killing unbelievers for Allah. And all killings are done in the name of Allah, if it is a suicide bombing or a murder in the name of family honour. In fact, moderate Muslims themselves can only be moderate in the West and in Muslim countries who are moderate themselves (that is, not under Islamic Sharia law and influenced by democratic, modern movements within). Try to be a moderate Muslim (or a apostate for that matter) in Iran, Saoudi Arabia, Aghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Gaza for example. A moderate Muslim is in the eyes of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Quran not a Muslim at all. If you don’t take the Quran literally and live like a good Muslim according all rules of Quran, Hadith, Sharia, you are doomed just like unbelievers are in the eyes of the radical Islamist.

Shia female militia

It’s for you to understand that the problems we face today with Islam is not about land or Muslim rights or modern society. The problems we face today are about ideology. The Islamization of our world, the destruction of Israel, the global Jihad, the hatred against all unbelievers are all serving the same goal: The Islam is seeking World Domination.

Who was Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini?

Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini was born on 24 september 1902 in the small town of Khomein, located near the city of Qom. His ancestors were descendants of the Imam Mousa al-Kazim, 7th Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt, and migrated to the Lucknow region of Northern India at the end of the eighteenth century. Ayatollah’s Khomeini’s grandfather Seyet Ahmad, settled in Khomein sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century. He was the child of a family with a long tradition of Islamic Scholarship.

The father of Ruhollah Khomeini, Seyed Moustafa, had his religious education in Esfahan, Samarra and Najaf. In march 1903, Ruhollah’s father was murdered by friends of a man who was sentenced to death by Seyed Moustafa, when Ruhollah was just 5 months old. He was raised by his mother and aunt until they both died in 1918. Ruhollah started to study the Quran at the age of 6. In 1920 he went to Arak and commenced his study under the leadership of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-Yazdi. In 1921 he followed the Ayatollah to the city of Qom and studied Islamic law (sharia), Jurisprudence (figh), poetry and philosophy (irfan). He became close friends with the son of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-Yazdi, Dr. Mehdi Haeri-Yazdi, who was the first Iranian Embassador (although just briefly) to the United States after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Because of his interest in philosophy and mysticism, Khomeiny sought guidance of Mirza Ali Akbar Yazdi, a scholar of philosophy and mysticism. After his dead in 1924, Khomeiny went on to study philosophy and mysticism with the help of other teachers and sufi mystics.

a young Ruhollah

Ruhollah Khomeiny became a lecturer at Najaf and Qom seminaries in political philosophy, Islamic history and ethics. He produced numerous writings on Islamic philosophy, law and ethics. By that time he was a leading scholar in Shia Islam. Although he was not known in the political scene at that moment, he was focusing on the importance of Islam on the practical social and political issues of society. In that time, 1942, he wrote the Kashf al-Asrar (Uncovering of Secrets). This book would play a major role in the coming Islamization of Iran and the Iranian revolution, because of it’s detailed interpretation of the Quran concerning practical and social issues of a Muslim society. In 1945, Khomeini became the title of Hojjat al-Islam, the highest in rank of Shia cleric in Iran under the Ayatollahs.

Ruhollah khomeini 1950's

In 1963 Khomeini became a Marja (Grand Ayatollah), which means that he was the highest authority of Islamic law after the Quran, Prophets and Imams. (He would eventually reach the status of Imam in Iran). From that time on he would oppose the Shah of Persia, because of his westernization of Iran (the White Revolution), which Khomeini considered as a betrayal to Islam. He was arrested for a speech he held in Feyziyeh madrasah, june 1963, opposing the Shah and followed by three days of riots. In August he was released and in november 1964 arrested again for his opposing of the Shah’s ’status-0ff-forces agreement’ with the United States. He was held 6 months in captive and the Shah finally sent him into exile to Turkey, and eventually he went to Iraq and France.

In 1970 Khomeini gave a series of lectures in Najaf about Islamic government. This was published as Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih (Islamic government: Authority of the Jurist), his most famous book. This book would lay the basics for the establishing of the Iranian Islamic republic in 1979.

The Shah lost his momentum of power during the seventies as several secular (democratic and left-wing) and Islamic groups revolted together against his regime. Army units started to deflect to the opposition and the remaining army would declare itself eventually neutral. Khomeini returned to Iran on 1 february 1979, the Shah had left the country two weeks earlier, and in March a referendum was held to which the people of Iran could choose between the establishing of a secular republic or an Islamic republic. Unaware of Khomeini’s plan for an Islamic Government by Wilayat al-faqih, rule by a Marja Islamic cleric, the people choose for an Islamic Republic. The people of Iran didn’t want an Islamic constitution, they just wanted to end the regime of the Shah. But Khomeini had other plans for Iran.

anti-shah revolution turned to Islamic revolution

It’s no surprise that, what can be seen now as the total Islamization of Iran, all social and political issues came into submission to Islamic law. And in this enviroment the Iran Hostage Crisis took place as well as the highly praised Islamic Martyrdom, devoutedly carried out by the Basiji during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeiny is also known for his fatwa (1989) against author Salman Rushdie ordering his assassination and the killing and suppression of opposition In Iran. In 1988 he issued a fatwa to kill every Iranian political prisoner who would not repent and show to be a real Muslim, which would led to the execution of many of them (numbers vary from 1400 to 30.000 murdered).

Since the Iranian Revolution, minorities like jews, christians and others have had a hard time in Iranian society, although Khomeiny issued a fatwa in 1979 that Jews should be treated well. He considered them to be the people of Moses, although he also rejected Zionism. In reality, jews and christians are seen in Iranian society as second-rang citizens and have less rights under Islamic law.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomieni died 3 june 1989 after eleven days in hospital of a heart attack at the age of 86.

The influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a Shiite religious leader and his writings can be seen today in Islamic terror organizations like Hezbollah (Lebanon), al-Qaida, Hamas (Gaza) and the Taliban (Afghanistan). Ayatollah Khomeini favors Islamic Martyrdom, even suicide bombing, and global Jihad against all unbelievers. His teachings around the coming of the twelfth Imam Mahdi evolves around the coming World Domination of Islam.

jews = zionism

If we compare this with contemporary Iran, we see that Muhammad Ahmadinejad is highly influenced by the teachings of this Shiite Religious leader and the Iranian Revolution. He is a devote follower of Shia Islam and a jihadist. So do you still wonder why Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust? He is not a madman, he is an intellectual, just like Khomeini. They share the same principles based on the same religion, the Islam and seek the destruction of Israel. Although they cleverly substituted the word jew for zionist. Ahmadinejad, just like Khomeini favors the Islamic global jihad and plays a major role in funding several terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Can you imagine what this man would do if he had nuclear capability? You have seen what freedom means in Iran. You have witnessed what the Basiji today do with opponents of the Islamic regime and demonstrators against Ahmadinejad (during the protests in june and july 2009).

Sayings and Excerpts from the writings of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is credited with dozens of books, tracts, letters and proclemations on his name. What we show here are only excerpts and by far not his complete legacy. I will not comment on each and every quote or excerpt, because they speak for themselves. It’s not hard to conclude that these writings and sayings from Khomeini and others, are clear about the way Muslim clerics, Muslim men and Muslim society should (according to Islamic law) treat women, children, jews, christians, unbelievers, homosexuals, moderate modernized Muslims etcetera. It’s clear what goes around in the mind of the suicide bomber, the jihadist, the Muslim terrorist, the antisemite, and in the mind of Muhammad Ahmadinejad (Iran), Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah), Bin Laden (al-Qaida), Nidal Hasan (ft. Hood) and so many others.

khomeini the imam

Kashf al-Asrar (‘Uncovering of secrets’, Khomeini’s first book, published in 1942)

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world … Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.”

“Islam says: kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?”

“Islam say: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?”

“Islam says: kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy?”

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!”

“There are hundreds of other ayat [Qur'anic verses] and ahadith urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

About the government of the Shah’s father, Reza Shah — “idiotic and treacherous … poisonous … heinous… a gang to plunder the country,” which allowed “women’s going naked in the streets” (a reference to the Shah’s father’s banning of the traditional hijab covering of women’s faces, not actual nudity) and the practice of “lechery, treachery, music, dancing, and a thousand other varieties of corruption.”

Resaleh Towzih al-Masa’el (1961? Book about Religious Law; how to be a good Shia Muslim; almost all answers in this book are copies from earlier transcripts from other writers as Ayatollah Sayyid Hossein Borujerdi and Sayyid Kazem Yazdi)

“God, Exalted and Almighty, … sent laws that astound us with their magnitude. He instituted laws and practices for all human affairs … There is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instruction and established a norm.”

“If a person crushes a mosquito on his skin and cannot determine whether the blood there from is the insect’s or his own, this blood is pure; but if the time between the bite and the death of the mosquito is so short that no such distinction can be made, the blood is impure.”

“Urinating and defecating are forbidden in four places: blind alleys, except with the permission of those living along them; the property of a person who has not given permission to do so; places of worship, such as certain madrasas; graves of believers, unless one does so as an insult to them.”

“There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel.”

“Every part of the body of a non-Muslim individual is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body.”

“One must avoid giving the Koran to an infidel; it is even recommended that it be forcibly taken away from him if he already has it in his hands.”

“A Muslim will inherit from an infidel but an infidel will not inherit from a Moslem even though he is the deceased’s father or son.”

“A woman who has been contracted permanently must not leave the house without the husband’s permission and must surrender herself for any pleasure that he wants and must not prevent him from having intercourse with her without a religious excuse. And if she obeys the husband in these the provision of her food and clothing and dwelling and other appliances mentioned in books is obligatory for the husband and if he does not provide them he is indebted to the woman, whether or not he can afford them.”

“It is recommended that one hurries [sic] in giving husband to a daughter who has attained puberty, meaning that she is of the age of religious accountability. His Holiness, Sadegh [the 6th Imam] salutations to him, bade that it is one of a man’s good fortunes that his daughter does not see menses in his own house. A girl who does not know whether or not she has finished nine years of age, when seeing blood which does not have the sign of menses, is not menstruating. And if [the blood] has the signs of menses and she is certain of its menstrual nature she is menstruating and it becomes evident that she has finished the age of nine.”

Traditionally Muslims are commanded not just to preach to others, but to command them to do what is good and not do what is evil – evil being both acts universally agreed to be crimes (larceny, rape, murder, etc), and religious sins (eating pork, drinking wine, ignoring fast during the holy months of Ramadan, etc.). Khomeini’s guidelines on how to deal with sinners start with giving them a warning, then “refraining from conversing” with them, then “breaking all relations with the sinner”, and work their way up to “beating the sinner”, and finally “wounding and slaying” them. Bodily harm is only “acceptable” if “permitted by a fully qualified Expert,” an expert meaning an expert in Islamic law such as the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Tahrir al-Vasileh (Book on Religious Law, written in Arabic to pass Iranian censorship, when he was in exile, Bursa in Turkey)

1) Apostasy is leaving Islam and accepting infidelity. One who turns from Islam to infidelity is called an apostate and that is of two kinds:
a) innate-apostate, and that is a person that one of his father or mother was Moslem when his seed was being jelled, and who embraced Islam following puberty and then left Islam.
b) National apostate, and that is a person whose father and mother were infidels when his seed was being jelled and he has expressed infidelity after puberty, and became an original infidel (kafar i aslee), then he embraced Islam and later has returned to infidelity; such as a person who originally was a Christian and became a Moslem and then returned to Christianity.

2) Innate-apostate’s [embracing of] Islam is apparently unacceptable and, if a man, his ruling is execution and, if a woman, she is condemned to prison for life and [with] beating when praying and straitening of livelihood, but her repenting is acceptable and she will freed if she repents.

3) A national apostate will be caused to repent and in case of refusing to repent will be executed. And it is preferable to give a 3 day reprieve and to execute him on the fourth day if he refused.

4) Puberty, knowledge, volition and intention are credible in ruling on apostasy.

5) The child of a Moslem or that of an apostate, whether national or innate, is considered Moslem before the father’s apostasy, and therefore, if the child reached puberty and chose infidelity he will be asked to repent (and to return to Islam), else he will be executed.

6) Apostasy is proven by the witnessing of two just men and by confession.

“… no equality in religion, therefore Moslem will not be retaliated for [killing an] infidel, unless a Moslem has a habit of killing infidels.”

“…the followers of the tri-religions (Jewish, Christianity and Zoroastrian) … undertake and guarantee the conditions of tribute, to be mentioned later, their religions will be recognized and an amount of poll tax (Jizyah) will be accepted from them.”

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.” From Khomeini’s book, Tahrirolvasyleh, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990 (note: this is a disputed excerpt by followers of Khomeini).

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.” The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in “Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh,” Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom (note: this is a disputed excerpt by followers of Khomeini).

Speech in Qom, 3 april  1963 (a speech given by Khomeini adressing the Shah’s legislation proposal in 1962 to allow non-Muslims (e.g. jews, christians, muslim minorities) and women to serve on local governments.

“I have repeatedly pointed out that the [shah] government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. …The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, jews, Vhristians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims.”

“…our aim which is none other than the great aim of Islam — to prevent oppression, arbitrary rule, and the violation of the law; to preserve the rights of Islam and the nation; and to establish social justice.”

Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e Faqih (Islamic Government: Authority of the Jurist) (Khomeini’s best known and most important book, derived from 17 lectures delivered in the main bazaar mosque of Najaf (Iraq) when in exile; it argued that government should be run in accordance with traditional Islamic Shari’ah law and a Faqih (i.e. ayatollah, Islamic cleric) must be in charge). “The Khomeinism Handbook” and bases for the Islamic Republic of Iran after the overtrow of the Shah regime in 1979.

“In order to assure the unity of the Islamic umma, in order to liberate the Islamic homeland from occupation and penetration by the imperialists and their puppet governments, it is imperative that we establish a government. … we must overthrow the oppressive governments installed by the imperialists and bring into existence an Islamic government of justice …”

“Islam proclaims monarchy and hereditary succession wrong and invalid. When Islam first appeared in Iran, the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, and the Yemen, the entire institution of monarchy was abolished.”

“In contrast … the body of Islamic laws that exist in the Qur’an and the Sunna has been accepted by the Muslims and recognized by them as worthy of obedience…”

“God, Exalted and Almighty, by means of the Most Noble Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him), sent laws that astound us with their magnitude. He instituted laws and practices for all human affairs . . . There is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instruction and established a norm. [But] in order to make the Muslims, especially the intellectuals and the younger generation, deviate from the path of Islam, foreign agents have constantly insinuated that Islam has nothing to offer, that Islam consists of a few ordinances concerning menstruation and parturition . . .”

“The agents of imperialism are busy in every corner of the Islamic world drawing our youth away from us with their evil propaganda.”

“Come to the aid of Islam; save Islam! They are destroying Islam! Invoking the laws of Islam and the name of the Most Noble Messenger (upon whom be peace and blessing), they are destroying Islam! Agents – both foreigners sent by the imperialists and natives employed by them – have spread out into every village and region of Iran and are leading out children and young people astray …”

“…centers of evil propaganda run by the churches, the Zionists, and the Baha’is in order to lead our people astray and make them abandon the ordinances and teaching of Islam. Do we not have a duty to destroy these centers that are damaging to Islam?”

“From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects more satanic then they. These new groups began their imperialist penetration of the Muslim countries about three hundred years ago, and they regarded it as necessary to work for the extirpation of Islam in order to attain their ultimate goals. … the imperialists … felt that the major obstacle in the path of their materialistic ambitions and the chief threat to their political power was nothing but Islam and its ordinances.”

“… is particularly important under the present circumstances, for the imperialists, the oppressive and treacherous rulers, the Jews, Christians, and materialists are all attempting to distort the truths of Islam and lead the Muslims astray. … We see today that the Jews (may God curse them) have meddled with the text of the Qur’an and have made certain changes in the Qur’ans they have had printed in the occupied territories. It is our duty to prevent this treacherous interference with the text of the Qur’an. We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that – God forbid! – they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day.”

Jehad-e Akbar (Lectures on the supreme Jihad). (1972, Lectures given to students)

“Infallibility is borne by faith. If one has faith in God, and if one sees God with the eyes of his heart, like sun, it would be impossible for him to commit a sin.” (According to some scholars, what Khomeini wanted to make clear was that he reached the status of infallibility, thus his sayings and decisions should have to be seen as faultless)

“If you have any tie or link binding you to this world in love, try to sever it. This world, despite all its apparent splendor and charm, is too worthless to be loved … What do you possess in this world that makes you so attached to it?” (Considering Khomeini’s appeal for martyrdom by the Basiji during the Iran-Iraq war).

Statement of Khomeini, 28 september 1977 (Given to students)

“Islam and divine governments are not like that. These [governments] have commandments for everybody, everywhere, at any place, in any condition. If a person were to commit an immoral dirty deed right next to his house, Islamic governments have business with him.”

“…has rules for every person, even before birth, before his marriage, until his marriages, pregnancy, birth, until upbringing of the child, the education of the adult, until puberty, youth, until old age, until death, into the grave, and beyond the grave. [The Islamic rules] do not come to an end simply [because the person] is put into the grave … That is just the beginning.”

arrival from exile 1979

Speeches from after Khomeini came to power (in 1979, the Iranian Revolution came to its climax with the return of Khomeini to Iran, the Shah left Iran two weeks earlier, and to take power through intimidation and shrewd political maneuvering the democratic and leftist forces who had thought they controlled the revolution. The anti-Shah revolution became the Islamic revolution. Iran became an Islamic nation and Khomeini “the Supreme Leader”).

“Dying does not mean nothingness: it is life.”

“At times a calamity becomes a blessing … It is under pressure that the spirits soar to the higher world … If we Muslims … were like other nations, and had been running after wealth, status … or were running for bread and sex, many would have been disappointed. But the nation that goes to war for martyrdom … such a nation can hardly think of anything else. As for its economy, it does not matter. These matters are for those who are tied to economies.”

“What the nation wants is an Islamic republic: not just a republic, not a democratic republic, not a democratic Islamic republic. Do not use this term, ‘democratic’. That is the Western style.” [1979 March 1]

“Theocracy is something that God, the exalted … has ordained … Wake up, you gentlemen … because the deviationists are … trying to … smash our movement … [They] speak out [against] the concept of theocracy … I shall strike you in the mouth. Stop this talk … Enough is enough: what ought to be done must be done.”

“The aim of the prophets [is] to guide mankind toward knowledge of God. All other issues are subsidiary to it.”

“The aim of the prophets was not to bring about social justice . . . not for the sake of people . . . but for God.”

“You should make sure that these people [iranian opposition] who indulge in corruption . . . are crushed with full force. Such people, wherever they are should be sentence to death.”

“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition in [such sports].”

“Superpowers are stripping us naked … One of their big plans is to … replace [our brains] … with European ones: to … rob us of our intellectual independence. And I am confident that the Iranian people, particularly our youth, will keep alive in their hearts anger and hatred for the criminal Soviet Union and the warmongering United States. This must be until the banner of Islam flies over every house in the world.”

“If the great martyr … confined himself to praying … the great tragedy of Kabala would not have come about … Among the contemporary ulema, if the great Ayatollah … Shirazi … thought like these people, a war would not have taken place in Iraq … all those Muslims would not have been martyred.”

“The issue is another world. Martyrdom is meant for another world. This is a martyrdom sought by all of God’s saints and prophets … The people want this meaning.”

“We have often proclaimed this truth in our domestic and foreign policy, namely that we have set as our goal the world-wide spread of the influence of Islam and the suppression of the rule of the world conquerors … We wish to cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, capitalism and Communism to wither throughout the world. We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order of the Prophet … in the world of arrogance.”

“We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry `There is no God but God` resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

“Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution.”

“Islamic Revolution … is being exported … [so that] with the dispensations of the Supreme Lord, the banner of Islam is likely to be hoisted throughout the globe in the not-too-distant future.”

“…the foremost enemy of Islam [USA]… a terrorist state by nature that has set fire to everything everywhere and its ally, the international Zionism does not stop short of any crime to achieve its base and greedy desires, crimes that the tongue and pen are ashamed to utter or write…

Source: Many of Ayatollah’s sayings and writings are also bundled in The Little Green Book (following the example of Mao’s Little Red Book). This can be seen as a template for Shia Islam. You can also read here the quotations from the Quran about martyrdom, war and killing of all unbelievers.

You also may want to read some excellent articles written by Matthias Kuntzel: The Basiji: Ahmadinejads demons or Ahmadinejad’s world or From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad.

For more information about the Life of Khomeini, please visit Wikipedia and the Iran Chamber

Appendix

For more insight and background information about the ancestry of Ruhollah Khomeini, please read the following story about his elder brother, Ayatollah Morteza Pasandideh.
If you want to know more about the political scene around the Shah and Khomeini during their time period, than you’ll find the following articles very interesting to read: The first story is claiming that Khomeini supposedly was an agent for the US and UK government. The second story is about Khomeini and Rushdie and the British involvement.

These articles may be accurate or not, what matters most is (and that was the main purpose of our article) that the extremism and Jihad of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Shia Islam is a real threat to our free world. Personally, I believe that we would be surprised (and shocked) if we knew everything about the dirty games our governments are playing if it comes to oil and oil industry. The same goes for the treacherous and corrupt Arabic Islamic Kingdoms and totalitarian Governments in the Middle East.

Whether Khomeini really was half brit and half indian, I’m not sure. But in a way, does that really matter? Does it really matter that Ahmadinejad is from Jewish origin? What matters is that these zealous Shia Muslim men tried and are trying to seek the destruction of Israel and world domination for Islam. I think most people will agree on that.

Related posts:

1. Iran Hostage Crisis – Letter from Carter to Khomeini
2. Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and Anti-Semitic Speeches
3. Fadlallah’s Legacy Sparks Debate Between Iran’s Reformists and Conservatives

Must watch video about how women are treated in contemporary Afghanistan.

It’s politically incorrect to blame the Islam for the way many Muslim men treat their women. It’s politically incorrect to expose the Islam as a violent, discriminating and abusive religion towards women and children. It’s politically incorrect to blame the Islamic law (sharia) for the execution of women for “crimes” the western societies would praise them for. It’s politically incorrect to expose the Islam as a backwarded religion who forces children into “marriage”. It’s politically incorrect to even think such things at all, but nevertheless these are facts within the Islam. Think about that, before you support your local mosque in your hometown or before you agree with claims made by Hamas or the Taliban or Hezbollah about “their so-called rights”. This is what awaits you when Islam and Sharia is at your doorstep. It’s time to wake up and decide what you’re going to do about that.

Link:

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. What if the Taliban Wins the War on Terror?
2. The World’s Double Standard against Israel
3. “Pakistan Knows Where Osama Bin Laden Is”

In Israelaktueel van november 2009 (25e jaargang, nr. 226) staat een interessant artikel, geschreven door Alfred Muller. In dit artikel beschrijft Muller een interview met Benyamin (Benny) Begin van de Likoed partij en gaat over het moeizame proces van vrede met de Palestijnen. Benny Begin is in het huidige kabinet Netanyahu Minister zonder portefeuille.

Benyamin Begin

Benny is de zoon van de 6e premier van Israel, Menachem Begin, die het vredesakkoord sloot met president Sadat van Egypte op 26 maart 1979. Hij is geboren op 1 maart 1943 en studeerde geologie aan de Hebreeuwse Universiteit van Jeruzalem. Zijn doctoraat behaalde hij aan de Colorado State University in de Verenigde Staten. In 1988 werd hij voor de Likoed partij verkozen in de Knesset en werd als zodanig politicus. Hij was al eerder minister in een regering onder Netanyahu als Minister van Wetenschap (1996-1999).

Het meest treffend aan het interview is de pessimistische, maar ook realistische kijk van Benny Begin op het vredesproces met de Palestijnen. Volgens zijn eigen zeggen bevindt Israel zich in een gekkenhuis, doelend op de omringende buren van Israel met hun wapenarsenalen, die slechts de vernietiging van de Joodse staat op het oog hebben. Waaronder de 40.000 Hezbollah raketten in Libanon.

In het interview geeft Benny Begin ook een opsomming van feiten die, als men dit leest, zich doet afvragen waarom de Palestijnen elke keer de uitgestoken hand van Israel afwijzen. Eerder was dat ook al het geval met Ehud Barak (toendertijd premier van Israel) die vergaande vredesvoorstellen deed aan Yasser Arafat, de toenmalige leider van de Palestijnen, maar deze werden afgewezen. Waarna het alleen maar moeilijker werd om het vredesproces weer op gang te krijgen. Ditzelfde gebeurde met de vredesvoorstellen van Ehud Olmert, die premier van Israel was van 4 mei 2006 tot 31 maart 2009.  Deze vredesvoorstellen kwamen er op neer dat Israel zich zou terugtrekken uit 97 procent van de Westelijke Jordaanoever, waarbij de overige 3 procent via landruil verkregen zou worden. Daarnaast zou Olmert akkoord gaan met het recht op terugkeer voor Palestijnse vluchtelingen en een symbolische terugkeer van enkele duizenden vluchtelingen naar Israel. (Washington Post, 29 mei 2009, interview met Mahmoud Abbas). Tevens zou Olmert ermee ingestemd hebben dat de ‘Oude Stad en omgeving’ van Jeruzalem, de zogenaamde ‘heilige kom’, onder gezamenlijk bestuur zou komen van Jordanië, de VS, Saoedi Arabië, de Palestijnse Autoriteit en Israël. (Newsweek, 13 juni 2009).

Het mag duidelijk zijn dat dit een vergaand voorstel was van Olmert en dat dit voorstel ook belangrijke voorwaarden van de Palestijnen voor een vredesakkoord tegemoet kwam. Het antwoord van Abbas op dit voorstel was echter duidelijk: “De kloof is groot.” Met andere woorden, Israël moet zichzelf in een onmogelijke positie brengen om deze kloof te overbruggen, waarbij van de Palestijnen geen offers gevraagd worden voor een oplossing. Sterker nog, volgens Begin heeft de Palestijnse Autoriteit onder leiding van Abbas in augustus 2009 nog een resolutie aangenomen, die “de gewapende revolutie” cruciaal noemt om de “verwijdering van de Zionistische aanwezigheid” te bereiken en dat er geen sprake van kan zijn dat Israel erkend wordt als Joodse staat. Het lijkt me duidelijk wie de kloof, bewust en met een vooropgezet doel, zo groot maken.

Wat velen denken, denkt Begin ook: de PLO wil geen tweestaten oplossing, maar een tweefasen oplossing. De eerste fase is de oprichting van de Palestijnse staat op de Westbank en Gaza, en de tweede fase is de rest van Israel tot aan de grenzen van 1948, mogelijk zelfs de totale verwijdering van een Joodse staat Israel uit het MiddenOosten.

Tijdens vredesonderhandelingen heeft de Israelische delegatie aan de Palestijnse delegatie gevraagd: “Stel je voor dat we een overeenkomst bereiken die beide partijen goed vinden, gaat u dan akkoord met een artikel dat stelt dat de overeenkomst een einde maakt aan het conflict en dat alle claims van beide partijen komen te vervallen?” Het antwoordt van de Palestijnse delegatie was ontnuchterend: “Nee”. De Palestijnse wil tot vrede is daarmee duidelijk geworden.

De afgelopen jaren laten zien dat Israel niets is opgeschoten met al hun handreikingen aan de Palestijnen. Als dank voor de terugtrekking van het Israelische leger uit de dichtbevolkte Palestijnse gebieden (Westbank en Gaza), kregen ze jarenlange terreur die tot op de dag van vandaag aanhoudt. De Palestijnse Autoriteit heeft weinig bereikt met economische vooruitgang in de hun toevertrouwde gebieden, ondanks honderden miljoenen dollars aan hulp uit Israel en het Westen. Er is geen sprake van democratisch bestuur en mensenrechten worden met voeten getreden, al zwijgt de westerse media daar bij voorkeur over. Ook na de terugtrekking van het Israelische leger uit Gaza kreeg Israel als dank een lawine van raketten over zich heen, wat uiteraard weer nieuwe reacties van Israel uitlokte om hun eigen bevolking te beschermen. In plaats dat men zich in Gaza richtte op democratie en vrede, wordt alles door de Palestijnen geinvesteerd in terreur en Jodenhaat, gevoed door de radicale Islam van de Hamas. Desondanks stuurt Israel elke week meer als honderd vrachtwagens met hulpgoederen Gaza in, maar ook hierover zwijgt de westerse media bij voorkeur.

Vanuit dit perspectief gelooft Benny Begin niet, dat de Palestijnse Autoriteit een vredesakkoord met Israel wil sluiten. “We zien het niet dat zij fundamenteel hun houding, ideologie en basisprincipes veranderen. We zullen er met hen over discussiëren en onderhandelen. In Washington, New York en Moskou. We zullen zien of er een kleine kans is of ze hun houding veranderen. Een van de testen is dat ze Israël bij een tweestaten oplossing erkennen als nationale staat voor het Joodse volk.”

En dit heeft alles te maken met het fundamentele anti-joodse karakter van de Islam en de Islamitische cultuur. Wie dit niet ziet en begrijpt, werkt mee aan de vernietiging van de staat Israël, het doel van de Islamitische wereld.

Om de toekomst te begrijpen, moet je kijken naar de geschiedenis en deze laat duidelijk zien wat de echte bedoelingen zijn van de Islamitische landen. Nadat Menachem Begin en Anwar Sadat samen het vredesakkoord hadden gesloten in 1979, waarmee Egypte dus formeel het bestaansrecht erkende van Israel, werd Egypte verstoten uit de Arabische Liga en raakte geïsoleerd in de islamitische wereld. De islamitische landen veroordeelden het vredesakkoord van Egypte met Israel. Vrede had er allang kunnen zijn met de Palestijnen, als ze bereid waren geweest de uitgestoken hand van de Joden te accepteren.

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Het Nieuwe Handvest van Fatah Laat Zien Waarom Vrede Nog Veraf Is
2. Waarom Je Mij Niet Op Al-Jazeera Zal Zien
3. Een Journalistieke Freudiaanse Verspreking

Israel Navy intercepted a massive arms shipment from Iran en route to the Hezbollah in Lebanon

__

From the IDF Spokesperson, 4 nov. 2009: You can read the original article here!

Roughly 500 tons of weapons, rockets, and missiles was uncovered aboard the cargo vessel “Francop” flying an Antiguan flag, which was intercepted and brought to the Ashdod port. The Israel Navy force which intercepted the ship included naval commandos, missile boats, intelligence and explosive experts.

36 shipping containers with 500 tons of weaponry were found on the ship disguised as civilian cargo, and hidden among hundreds of other containers onboard.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXDCDPPeN_Q

You can also watch this video fullscreen, click here!

Israel Naval and Engineering Corps forces are currently unloading the containers and are sorting through the various types of weaponry found aboard.

The naval commando force boarded the vessel and conducted an initial search. The search was conducted in accordance with the usual search protocols as dictated by International Law.

Following the initial search and after it became clear that the vessel was carrying weapons, the vessel was directed by the Israel Navy to dock at the Israeli Ashdod Naval base for additional searches and a detailed inspection of the hull’s cargo. It should be emphasized that the captain of the ship agreed to the search. The Israel Navy conducted all activity without any force.

The weapons found onboard the ship originate from Iran, and were intended for the Hezbollah terror organization, for use against the State of Israel and its citizens. The weapons uncovered at sea last night constitute a harsh violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1701 that strictly forbid Iran from exporting or trading any form of weapons.

This is a well-known Iranian technique, taking advantage of cargo ships flying different flags in order to smuggle containers loaded with large amounts of highly volatile weaponry to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

Following the necessary inspections of the boat, it is expected to be released.

The overnight operation was authorized by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense of the State of Israel. Commander of the Israel Navy, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, commanded the operation from a forward command cell. The IDF Chief of the General Staff authorized the operation, after the confirmation of intelligence information gathered by the IDF.

1. List of past Iranian attempts to smuggle weapons to terrorist groups

__

From the IDF Spokesperson, 4 nov 2009:  You can read the original article here!

Weapons from the Karin a

December 2001 – The Karin A ship, loaded with weapons in Iran, bound for the Gaza Strip, was sailing towards Egypt with the intention of unloading its cargo there.  Small fishing boats were meant to pick up the cargo and deliver it to the Gaza Strip. The ship, loaded with rockets, anti-tank rockets, and light arms, was seized on January 3^rd, 2002 by Israeli Naval Commandos.

December 2003 – January 2004 - The Iranian Revolutionary Guard directed an aerial convoy to transfer weapons and supplies to Hezbollah via Syria. The aerial convoys were disguised as humanitarian aid intended for casualties of an earthquake in Bam, a city in southern Iran. The Iranians took advantage of the open airspace by trying to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah while humanitarian aid flights were landing in Iran from all over the world.

May 2007 – An Iranian train carrying arms (mortar shells, light arms, rocket launchers and ammunition) was uncovered in Turkey. The arms were intended for Hezbollah. The Iranians attempted to conceal and disguise the arms in order to avoid suspicion by the Turkish authorities.

January 2009 – An arms shipment sent by Iran was intercepted and seized in Cyprus after it was found on the Cypriot vessel Monchegorsk which had been leased by the Iranian Irisl shipping company. The Cargo was found to include tank, artillery and mortar shells as well as materials to be used for producing rockets.

October 2009 - The Hansa India, which sailed from Iran flying a German flag was due to unload a cargo of eight containers in Egypt. Following warnings from the German authorities the vessel was not unloaded and continued to Malta where it was seized and found to be carrying bullets and industrial material intended for the production of weapons, seemingly bound for Syria.

2. UN Resolutions limiting Iranian export and arms trade

__

UN Security Council Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007):
“Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related material, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.”

UN Security Council Resolution 1803 (March 24, 2008)
“Calls upon all States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, to inspect the cargoes to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels, at their airports and seaports, owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft or vessel is transporting goods prohibited under this resolution or resolution 1737 (2006) or resolutions 1747 (2007);”

UN Security Council Resolution 1835 (September 27, 2008)
“Reaffirms the statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, its resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006, its resolution 1747 (2007) of 24 March 2007, and its resolution 1803 (2008) of 3 March 2008…”

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. IDF Navy Forces Boarded and Took Control of MV “Rachel Corrie”
2. Israeli Navy Soldiers Board Seventh Flotilla Ship
3. Overview of The Pre-Planned Violence During Israel Navy Interception of Mavi Marmara

Het volgende artikel is geschreven door Enid Kooi. Bron: Israel Nieuwsbrief (uitgave oktober 2009/nr. 9/jaargang 24; CIDI)

De Iraanse president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sprak op 24 september 2009 tijdens de Algemene Vergadering van de VN. De verwachte Holocaust ontkenning bleef uit, maar zonder het woord ‘jood’ te noemen schetste hij een volledig door antisemitische stereotypen gekleurd wereldbeeld waarin Joden de vijand zijn die de wereld in hun greep houden om moslims kwaad te doen.

Ahmadinejads speech was volgens commentatoren meer gericht op de Arabische straat dan op Iran, om nog maar te zwijgen van de VN. Al in de aanhef zette hij de toon, niet alleen door zijn beroep op Allah, maar vooral door de goed Sjiitische hoop uit te spreken dat imam Al-Mahdi spoedig zal wederkomen en zal overwinnen. Ahmadinejad wierp zich in New York opnieuw op als de grote verdediger van de Islamitische wereld, die hij in nauwelijks bedekte termen afschilderde als slachtoffer van een door Joden gemanipuleerde westen.

In de speech van Ahmadinejad geven de steekwoorden “de wereld overheersen”, “bezetting” en “alle vormen van discriminatie” (denk aan Durban met zijn leus ‘Zionisme is Racisme’) en “broederschap” al aan waar dit heen gaat. Dit alles werkt hij uit met een aanval op het kapitalisme van “zekere machten”, waar tegenover hij “het ontwaken van volken” stelt en de “verspreiding van de vrijheid”.

Over die “zekere machten” zei de Iraanse president ook: “Wij kunnen niet langer accepteren dat een kleine minderheid de politiek, de economie en de cultuur van belangrijke delen van de wereld overheerst via wijd vertakte netwerken, een nieuwe vorm van slavernij instelt, en de reputatie van andere landen, zelfs van Europese landen en de VS, schade berokkent om haar racistische doelen te bereiken.”

Ahmadinejad had het woord ‘Jood’ niet genoemd, maar deze oude antisemitische fantasie over “een kleine groep” die de wereld overheerst volgde naadloos op zijn tirade over (het ook niet bij name genoemde) Israel. De antisemitische sneer ging vertegenwoordigers van veel EU-landen te ver. De meeste, Nederland, voorop, verlieten hierop de zaal. Tevoren al was op voorstel van minister Verhagen afgesproken dat de EU-landen dit zouden doen als Ahmadinejad opnieuw de Holocaust zou ontkennen. Naast Nederland vertrokken ook Zweden, Frankrijk, Engeland, Italië, Duitsland, Australië en Nieuw Zeeland; de VS, Israël en Canada stonden al buiten, omdat zij de speech boycotten. Opmerkelijk was, volgens een bericht in de Jerusalem Post, dat de afgevaardigden van de EU-landen Spanje en Bulgarije bleven zitten.

Wat Israel betreft contrasteerde Ahmadinejad onder meer de termen ‘genocide’, ‘onmenselijk’ en ‘verboden wapens’ met de ‘thuisland’ en ‘legitiem recht op zelfverdediging’ (van de Palestijnen). De tirade tegen de VS toonde wat de Iraanse president vindt van Obama’s ‘uitgestoken hand’, maar tegen die tijd was de zaal al grotendeels leeg. Ook Ahmadinejads oplossing (de heilige Koran) en zijn mooie woorden over de heilzame veranderingen die deze over de wereld zal brengen, inclusief een einde aan nucleaire proliferatie, ontgingen zo de meeste afgevaardigden.

De speech van Ahmadinejad toonde opnieuw dat hij zich weinig gelegen laat liggen aan de Westerse wereld. Ahmadinejad is niet van plan te stoppen met het door het Internationale Atoomenergieagentschap als illegaal getypeerde Iraanse nucleaire programma. Hij stelt dat zijn land net als andere landen een vreedzaam programma mag hebben. Steeds minder mensen geloven echter dat het programma werkelijk vreedzaam is.

Na de VN vergadering bleek dat Teheran een tweede nucleaire fabriek bouwt. Daarbij heeft het land meerdere malen testen uitgevoerd met ballistische raketten die Israel en delen van Europa kunnen bereiken. De leden van de VN Veiligheidsraad hebben tijdens de zitting van de Algemene Vergadering ingestemd met een resolutie tegen de verspreiding van nucleaire wapens. Ook wordt al enige tijd overwogen het sanctieregime tegen Iran te verzwaren. Inmiddels heeft Rusland aangegeven daar niet meer afwijzend tegenover te staan. Na het bekend worden van het bestaan van een tweede fabriek en na de raket oefeningen bestaat de kans dat ook andere landen hiermee in zullen stemmen.

Op 1 oktober spraken de vijf permanente leden van de VN-raad plus Duitsland met Iran over zijn nucleaire ambities. Tijdens deze gesprekken beloofde Iran dat het Internationale Atoomagentschap volledig toegang krijgt tot de nieuwe verrijkingsfabriek en dat Teheran alle medewerking zal verschaffen. Het westen bereidt echter nieuwe gesprekken voor en is van plan om nieuwe sancties tegen het Moellah regime te ontwerpen. Of deze sancties ook zwaarder zullen zijn, zal dan blijken.

basiji militie

Ahmadinejads Basiji achtergrond en de komst van imam Al-Mahdi

In de aanhef van zijn speech voor de Algemene Vergadering van de VN sprak Ahmadinejad de hoop uit dat de komst van Imam al-Mahdi bespoedigd zou worden en dat hij zal overwinnen. Wat er moet gebeuren om die komst te bespoedigen zei hij er niet bij, maar in het licht van Ahmadinejads militante Basiji achtergrond versterkt dit de twijfels over de vreedzame bedoelingen van Iran’s nucleaire programma.

De twaalfde imam, al-Mahdi, wordt door Sjiieten gezien als een messias van de Islam. Deze imam viel als klein jongetje in de negende eeuw in het Iraanse stadje Jamkaran in een waterput, maar volgens de overlevering zal hij als een volwassen man samen met Jezus terugkeren om de wereldorde te herstellen en te zorgen voor goedheid en verbetering. Ahmadinejad gelooft dat de imam pas terug komt als de weg is vrijgemaakt van vijanden en hij is er van overtuigd dat hij hiervoor moet zorgen. Zo zei hij in een speech op een theologische conferentie in 2005: “De belangrijkste taak van onze revolutie is om de weg te bereiden voor de terugkeer van de Twaalfde Imam.”

De gedachte dat de weg vrijgemaakt moet worden van vijanden, is in de wereld geholpen door de Ayatollah Khomeini. Deze geestelijke heeft het oorspronkelijke messiasverhaal uitgebreid met de bewering dat Moslims hun wapens op moeten pakken om de komst van de Mahdi te bespoedigen. Oorspronkelijk was het doel van deze toevoeging op het imamverhaal de jonge Basiji’s te motiveren.

De Basiji-e Mostazafan (‘de mobilisering van de onderdrukte’), is een paramilitaire organisatie die het martelaarschap als het hoogste goed ziet en die met name veel kinderen indoctrineerde met het verlangen om te sterven voor Allah. Deze organisatie is in het leven geroepen door Khomeiny in 1979. Tijdens de Iran-Irakoorlog stuurde hij tienduizenden jonge Basiji’s slecht bewapend als martelaren naar de frontlinie van het slagveld of een mijnenveld in. Het was hun plicht om door te blijven lopen ook al werd er op hun geschoten of liepen ze door het mijnenveld. Op deze manier vormden zij een schild voor de ervaren militairen.

Om deze kinderen aan te moedigen om op deze manier de dood in te lopen, zette het regime een show op. Er verscheen meerdere malen plotseling een mysterieuze man aan de frontlinie. Deze man, die de twaalfde imam moest voorstellen, reed op een paard en droeg een middeleeuws kostuum. Zijn gezicht was niet zichtbaar. Wanneer de kinderen de schijnbare imam zagen, reageerden zij in eerste instantie emotioneel. Ze renden naar de imam toe en begonnen te bidden of te huilen. Na deze emoties veranderde hun angst en vermoeidheid in motivatie om verder te lopen. Tijdens het lopen zongen de kinderen ook liederen over de Slag van Karbala, waarin imam Hoessein, kleinzoon van de profeet Mohammed, werd gemarteld en gedood.

Hoessein wordt geëerd als een martelaar die een opstand tegen de ‘tirannie’ van Khalief Yazid leidde. Nadat deze opstand was verraden, werd Hoessein vermoord met 33 lanssteken en 34 zwaardsneden, waarna hij werd onthoofd en zijn lichaam vertrapt door paarden. Hij is het grote voorbeeld van de jonge Basiji’s. Zij droegen tijdens hun tochten plastic sleutels (‘made in taiwan’) om de nek, die de toegangspoorten van het paradijs moesten openen.

Ahmadinejad was destijds een van de Basiji-instructeurs die de kinderen klaarstoomde voor hun martelaarsdood. Dit verklaart de Duitse schrijver en politiek wetenschapper Matthias Kuntzel in zijn essay ‘Ahmidinejads wereld’. De verkiezingszege uit 2005 heeft de president te danken aan de Basiji en hij laat zich nog vaak zien in Basiji-uniform tijdens publieke aangelegenheden. De organisatie zelf dient tegenwoordig als beschermer van het Moellah-regime. Na de laatste verkiezingen werden de Basiji’s bijvoorbeeld ingezet om de “orde te handhaven” tijdens de recente protesten.

Mullah and the basiji

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. President Ahmadinejad speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009
2. Who will stop Iran’s Ahmadinejad?
3. The Basiji: Ahmadinejad’s demons

News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

(October 6-12, 2009)

Gaza Strip

This past week, despite the events on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, there was a decrease in the amount of rocket and mortar shell fire. One mortar shell hit was identified in an open field near the southern Israeli city of Sderot (October 7, 2009). There were no casualties and no damage was done. Elements within the Army of the Nation (a network affiliated with the global jihad) claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it retaliation for the events at Al-Aqsa mosque (Ma’an News Agency, October 8, 2009).

On October 6 civilians working near the Karni crossing were attacked with light arms fire. An IDF force responded with mortar shells. The military-terrorist wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack. According to reports in the Palestinian media, the Israeli fire wounded a number of Palestinian civilians (Qudsnews and Safa News Agency, October 6, 2009).

The crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip were open all week and 642 trucks entered with food and supplies.

The statistics do not include the mortar shells fired at IDF soldiers patrolling the border fence which fell inside the Gaza Strip.

Hamas continues its policy of restraint

According to an article in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, as the events at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem caused tension, the de-facto Hamas administration tightened its control of the Gaza Strip and prevented rockets from being fired into Israeli territory. The paper also reported that on two separate occasions Hamas’ security forces detained operatives of new networks who were planning to fire rockets. The operatives were interrogated and released after their rockets had been confiscated and they had been warned not to fire again. According to the article, Hamas security forces take the same measures against operatives from larger organizations such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, October 6, 2009).

Another source reported that Hamas’ attempt to detain a Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative led to exchanges of fire between PIJ and Hamas operatives in the Shati refugee camp (PalPress website, October 9, 2009). A senior PIJ figure claimed that on at least three instances during the past month Hamas security forces prevented the PIJ from firing rockets into Israel in retaliation for killing two of its operatives and for the events on the Temple Mount. He added that Hamas has detained two other PIJ operatives over struggles for control of a mosque in the northern Gaza Strip. Ihab al-Ghussin, spokesman for the ministry of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, said in response that “Hamas does not restrict the resistance’s activity” (Al-Ayyam, October 11, 2009).

Judea and Samaria

The Israeli security forces continued their counterterrorism activities this past week, detaining Palestinians suspected of terrorist activities. There were many attacks this week, among them the following:

October 12: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle southeast of Hebron. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 12, 2009).

October 11: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle southwest of Bethlehem. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged. Stones were also thrown at an Israel vehicle southeast of Qalqilya and north of Ramallah. There were no casualties but the vehicle was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 11: A knife and improvised IED were found in the possession of two Palestinian youths at the Hawara checkpoint south of Nablus (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 11: A fake IED was thrown at an IDF force at the Hawara checkpoint. There were no casualties and no damage was done. The IED was detonated in a controlled explosion by the IDF force (IDF Spokesman, October 11, 2009).

October 10: An Israeli woman civilian was injured when stones were thrown at her car south of Nablus. Stones were also thrown at an Israel vehicle southeast of Bethlehem. There were no casualties(Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 10: An IDF force uncovered a stockpile of Molotov cocktails ready for throwing in a village north of Nablus (Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 9: Stones were thrown at an Israeli vehicle northeast of Ramallah. A female Israeli passenger sustained a head injury (Ynet, October 10, 2009).

October 8: Stones were thrown at an Israeli bus near Bethlehem. There were no casualties but the bus was damaged (IDF Spokesman, October 8, 2009).

Hamas prepares to respond to the Goldstone Report

On October 8 Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip was preparing legal responses to the accusations made against it by the Goldstone Report. A committee had been appointed to repudiate the accusations, especially those concerning its use of civilians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead. According to Mahmoud al-Zahar, the committee would submit evidence based on events on the ground and on reports by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, October 8, 2009).

Internal power struggles in the Dughmush clan

On the afternoon of October 10 there was a confrontation in the Sabra network in the southern part of Gaza City between terrorist operatives of the so-called Popular Resistance, members of Zakaria Dughmush’s family and members of Mumtaz Dughmush’s family belonging to the Army of Islam. The confrontation lasted for two hours. The house of the organization’s secretary general, Zakaria Dughmush, was attacked with machine guns and RPGs and Rashid Dughmush was killed (PalToday website, October 10, 2009). Elements within the so-called Popular Resistance asked the Hamas de-facto administration to investigate the affair and find the guilty parties. They said it was a question of an internal clan conflict (Muqawamah website, October 10, 2009). This is not the first time the influential Dughmush clan has been involved in internal power struggles linked to the terrorist organizations.

The peace process

Following American envoy George Mitchell’s meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority said in a statement that Mitchell’s visit had not lead to “genuine progress in relaunching the peace process and ensuring its success because of the position of the Israeli government” (Wafa News Agency, October 12, 2009).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened the winter session of the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] with a speech relating, among other things, to the principles of Israel-Palestinian peace. He said those principles were Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a solution to the refugee problem beyond the borders of the State of Israel, an effective and recognized demilitarization of the Palestinian state and to put an end to Palestinian demands on Israel [as part of any agreement reached]. He also reviewed the steps taken by Israel to improve Palestinian welfare, which included the dismantling of roadblocks and checkpoints, removing the earthworks blocking roads, improving freedom of movement, encouraging commerce and leaving the Allenby Bridge open for longer hours.

Following internal pressure caused by Hamas’ vicious propaganda campaign, the Palestinian Authority is bringing the Goldstone Report before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and the General Assembly in New York. In addition, on October 11 the PLO’s Executive committee again adopted the report. Palestinian media reported that Mahmoud Abbas had received a phone call from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Ban reportedly expressed support for Mahmoud Abbas’ request to hold an extraordinary session of the Council in Geneva to ratify the Goldstone Report, as well as support for the report in the deliberations which will be held in the Security Council between October 10 and 14 (Wafa News Agency, October 11, 2009).

Saeb Erekat, head PLO negotiator, said that Mahmoud Abbas had asked that the Goldstone Report be presented to the Human Rights Council. He added that the Palestinian Authority chairman had instructed the Palestinian representative in Geneva to call on the Arab-Muslim world and the unaligned countries to meet to present the report again (Al-Jazeera TV, October 9, 2009). In addition, Libya and the Palestinians are planning to introduce the Goldstone Report into the General Assembly’s monthly discussion of the Middle East. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said that the Palestinians were trying to convince UN members support the Goldstone Report.

Violent incidents on the Temple Mount abate.

The Friday, October 9, prayers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria ended with relative quiet despite the incitement campaign to violence in Jerusalem. In the Gaza Strip Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organized mass demonstrations. In Judea and Samaria there was a general protest strike, and marches and rallies in the cities. Hamas issued a press release accusing the Palestinian Authority security forces of preventing marches to support Al-Aqsa mosque.

Hamas and Fatah activists said the following about maintaining and even escalating the tension in Jerusalem:

Ismail Haniya, head of the Hamas de-facto administration in the Gaza Strip, gave a speech after the Friday prayers in which he denounced Israel’s actions in Jerusalem, describing them as “implementing the Zionist plan to completely take over Al-Aqsa mosque.” He said Israel’s actions were “especially serious” and that the Palestinians would not give up Jerusalem and would pay any price to maintain the sanctity of Al-Aqsa mosque (Hamas’ Palestine-Info website, October 9, 2009).

Imad Afana, political writer and secretary general of the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Legislative Council, wrote an article calling on Hamas to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel immediately, with the emphasis on Jerusalem. He said the attacks should be of all types, carried out by individuals and groups, with knives and rocks, tractors and explosives, shooting and sniping (Hamas’ Palestine-Info website, October 9, 2009).

Hatem Abd al-Qader, who holds the Fatah Jerusalem affairs portfolio and who often comments on the subject, told a Hezbollah website that the end of the current crisis at Al-Aqsa mosque did not in any way mean that the “danger” threatening Jerusalem had ended. He called on Palestinians to go to the ribat of the Al-Aqsa mosque precinct, to crowd into the mosque during prayers and to make sure there were people there 24 hours a day (alintiqad.com, October 11, 2009). Ribat: an Islamic term for a defensive deployment on the front line with the enemy to defend Muslims from infidels in preparation for jihad.

Verbal infighting between Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas continues

While the Palestinian media deals extensively with the changes of a reconciliation agreement’s being signed, verbal infighting has escalated between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, focusing on mutual accusations hurled by Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mashaal. Both gave televised speeches relating to the events in Jerusalem, the Goldstone Report and Fatah-Hamas relations. The main points of the speeches were the following:

Mahmoud Abbas: On October 11 Mahmoud Abbas spoke on Palestinian Television. Mahmoud Abbas strongly attacked Israel for its actions in Jerusalem, which he called “ethnic cleansing.” He claimed that Al-Aqsa mosque had become a permanent target of Israel and “radical Israelis” in their efforts to Judaize Jerusalem. He also said that Jerusalem was “the door and key to peace” and that continuing to harm it “fanned the flames of tension and war in the Middle East and the world.” He claimed that the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem were stopping “the new attack on Al-Aqsa TV and Jerusalem,” and that the Palestinians were determined to defend Jerusalem, “the capital of Palestine.” He also said that no peace agreement would be signed if it did not include the end of the so-called “Israeli occupation” of Jerusalem. The Palestinians, he said, were integrated into the efforts of the Obama administration to advance the peace process. However, they were not influenced by pressure and had not changed their position during the tripartite meeting in New York. [Meeting with Salam Fayyad on October 10,] American envoy George Mitchell made it clear that the condition for to assure “the end of the occupation and the building in the settlements, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders.” Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority was working in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to raise the proposal. However, it had not yet been lodged because there were countries which did not agree to it and the Palestinians wanted to avoid a situation in which they could not achieve the necessary majority in the Council. According to Wafa News Agency, October 11, 2009, he added [apologetically] that he understood the anger caused by the issue and hinted that he was ready to take responsibility (“I have always believed that a senior [leader] is elected when the people trust him, and he has to take responsibility for his people…”). He said he had told the Palestinian Authority representative in Geneva [Ibrahim Kharisha] to call an extraordinary session of the Human Rights Council to discuss and vote on the Goldstone Report. He added that the had asked the permanent Palestinian Authority observer in the UN (Riyad Mansour] to initiate the same action in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Palestinian Authority, he said, was making every possible effort to end the schism caused by Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The solution of the crisis was “to ask the people for a verdict and to return to the polls.” He said that the Palestinian Authority did not need Hamas to vouch for its honesty. He said Hamas’ campaign against him had exposed its [true] goal, which was to evade signing the national reconciliation agreement so that it could perpetuate its “emirate” in the Gaza Strip and topple the Palestinian Authority.

In response Hamas said the following: Mahmoud al-Zahar, member of the Hamas political bureau in the Gaza Strip, said that Mahmoud Abbas was the main reason discussion of the Goldstone Report had been postponed, despite his efforts to blame others (Al-Quds TV, October 11, 2009). Ahmed Bahar, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that Mahmoud Abbas’ speech “disappointed the hopes” of the Palestinians and it was a continuation of the denial of the rights of the victims of Operation Cast Lead and a cover-up of Israel’s actions (PalToday website, October 12, 2009). Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman, described the speech as “an evasion of responsibility for postponing the discussion of the Goldstone Report.”

Khaled Mashaal spoke in Damascus, and said the following (Al-Aqsa TV, October 11, 2009):

The Obama administration: Khaled Mashaal said that at the beginning of its term the Obama administration used “a different language” and showed positive signs, but had not translated words into deeds. Obama, he said, had received the Noble Prize for flowery rhetoric and for promises which had not been kept: “The Obama administration gives words to us and deeds to our enemies,” and thus the Palestinians had no support in the their struggle against Israel. Adherence to the path of the “resistance” [violence and terrorism] and the other “rights of the Palestinians:” Khaled Mashaal repeatedly stated that “the resistance is the strategic option to liberate out land and restore our rights.” He stated his adherence to “the right of return,” to Jerusalem and to the “liberation” of Palestinian land from the “foreigners” who occupied it. The Palestinian Authority and the PLO: According to Khaled Mashaal, both were leading the Palestinians to destruction and oppressing the residents of the West Bank. He accused the PA of not opposing Operation Cast Lead, of casting doubt on “the right of return” and of being ready to trade territory. He attacked the PA for accepting President Obama’s invitation to the tripartite meeting in New York. The Goldstone Report: Khaled Mashaal accused the Palestinian Authority of rushing to renege on its support for the report: “When an international report condemns Israel the PA tries to rescue it.” He added that the PA had gotten entangled in excuses for reneging on its support of the report and continued to lie. He said the PA leadership should be held accountable, especially Mahmoud Abbas, and that a “wise” Palestinian leadership should be appointed in its stead, one that understood the interests of the Palestinian people. He claimed that the Palestinian presidency was not legal and had not been since January 2009 according to Palestinian law. He said that [the issue of] the Goldstone Report had caused great anger and that it would therefore be impossible to hold the reconciliation meeting [scheduled for Cairo on October 24].

Khaled Mashaal ignored the fact that the report strongly denounced Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel and called it “…a war crime, and may amount to crime against humanity” (Goldstone Report p. 474).

Fatah’s Central Committee said that Khaled Mashaal’s speech indicated “escalation which did not take into consideration the interests of the Palestinians and was a serious attack on the attempts being made to reach a reconciliation and an agreement” (Ma’an News Agency, October 12, 2009). Hussein al-Sheikh, a member of the Committee, said that Khaled Mashaal’s speech was an expression of the decision made by Hamas to destroy the Egyptian efforts for reconciliation (Agence France-Presse, October 11, 2009).

Reconciliation dialogue between Fatah and Hamas

Palestinian and foreign media have reported that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip told the Egyptians that the movement did not intend to participate in the final round of the reconciliation dialogue planned for October 24 and that it refused to sign a reconciliation agreement with Fatah on October 26. The reason [or excuse] for its refusal was the Palestinian Authority’s agreement to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone Report (Reuters, October 8; QudsNet website, October 7, 2009). Khaled Mashaal also stated in his speech that it would be impossible to hold the reconciliation meeting. On the other hand, Ismail Radwan and Mahmoud al-Zahar denied the report about the meeting in Egypt and said that the Hamas leadership was still debating the question of whether or not to boycott the next round of talks (Al-Arabiya TV, October 8, 2009).

Hamas’ propaganda campaign against the Palestinian Authority continues

Hamas propaganda campaign against Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continued this past week as well, with an attempt to exploit the events in Jerusalem and the Goldstone Report to smear the PA: In the Gaza Strip signs were hung by a group of university lecturers working under Hamas aegis. The signs show Mahmoud Abbas in the foreground which an X across his face and in the background “shaheeds” from Operation Cast Lead. The caption reads “Mahmoud Abbas, traitor, [you will go] to the garbage can of history” (Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar website, October 8, 2009). The Hamas leadership refused to denounce the signs and Ismail Radwan justified them, saying that they were the outcome of public rage against Mahmoud Abbas following the postponement of the discussion of the Goldstone Report (Ma’an News Agency, October 7, 2009).

Ihab al-Ghussin, spokesman for the ministry of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, said in an interview on Al-Jazeera TV that Hamas intended to bring Mahmoud Abbas to court for his conduct in the Goldstone Report affair. He said that Fathi Hamad, minister of the interior of the Hamas de-facto administration, would appoint a legal committee headed by the advisor to the minister of justice to sue Mahmoud Abbas in the name of the shaheeds who had belonged to the ministry of the interior, in international courts and human rights institutions (Al-Jazeera TV, October 7, 2009).

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Abbas: Jerusalem Is The Key To Solve The Conflict
2. Hamas Promises to Continue Terrorism until Israel Is Destroyed
3. Declarations Regarding the Plan to Establish a Palestinian State

Full transcript of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN General Assembly 23th september 2009:

ahmadinejad un speech 2009

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

“All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, and peace and blessing
be upon our Master and Prophet, Mohammad, and his pure Household,
and his noble Companions”

“Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good
health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his
rightfulness”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTgCmn7Qksw

Mr. President,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the Almighty God for granting me, once more, this opportunity to address this important international meeting.

I wish to begin by congratulating you, Mr. President, for having assumed the presidency of the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly and wish you all the success. I also extend my thanks to H.E. Mr. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, for his excellent stewardship of the work of the General Assembly during his term.

Over the past four years I have talked to you concerning the main challenges facing our world. I have talked about the roots and underlying causes of these challenges and the need for the world powers to review their outlook and workout new mechanisms to address the pressing international problems. I have talked about the two conflicting outlooks prevailing in our world; one that is based on the predominance of its materialistic interests through spreading inequality and oppression, poverty and deprivation, aggression, occupation and deception, and tends to bring the entire world under its control and impose its will on other nations. This outlook has produced nothing but frustration, disappointment and a dark future for the entire humanity.

The other outlook is the one that spouses with the belief in the oneness of the Almighty God, follows the teaching of His messengers, respects human dignity and seeks to build a secure world for all members of the human community, in which everybody can equally enjoy the blessings of sustainable peace and spirituality. The latter is an outlook that respects all human beings, nations, and valuable cultures in defiance of all types of discrimination in the world, and commits itself into a constant fight to promote equality for all before the law on the basis of justice and fraternity, laying a solid foundation to guarantee equal access for all human beings in their quest to excel in knowledge and science.

I have laid emphasis time and again on the need to make fundamental changes in the current attitudes towards the world and the human being in order to be able to create a bright tomorrow.

Friends and Colleagues;
Today, I wish to share with you a few points about the changes that should take place.

First,
Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible. The present inequitable and unfavorable conditions run counter to the very nature of human kind and move in a direction which contravenes the truth and the goal behind the creation of the world.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcFchaRWiMY

It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing worthless paper assets, or transfer inflation as well as social and economic problems to others through creating sever budget deficits. The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of road and is unable to move. The era of capitalist thinking and imposition of one’s thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.

Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.

The time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards whilst they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer sit both the judge and the executor and challenge the real democratically- established governments.

The awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow them to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. Because of all these reasons most nations including the people of the Untied States are waiting for real and profound changes. They have welcomed and will continue to welcome changes.

How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peace lovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists.

How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine.

They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure.

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.

It is not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region while blaming the protests of nations in the region, that are concerned about their fate and their national security, as a move against peace and as interference in others’ affairs. Look at the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlx9nJ0iXqA

It is no longer possible to bring a country under military occupation in the name of fight against terrorism and drug trafficking while the production of illicit drugs has multiplied, terrorism has widened its dimensions and has tightened its grips, thousands of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced, infrastructures have been destroyed and regional security has been seriously jeopardized; and those who have created the current disastrous situation continue to blame others. How you can talk about friendship and solidarity with other nations while you expand your military bases in different parts of the world including in Latin America. This situation cannot continue. It is all the more impossible to advance expansionist and inhuman policies on the basis of militaristic logic. The logic of coercion and intimidation will produce dire consequences, exacerbating the present global problems.

It is not acceptable that the military budget of some governments exceeds far larger than those of the entire countries of the world. They export billions of dollars of arms every year, stockpile chemical and biological weapons, establish military bases or have military presence in other countries while accusing others of militarism, and mobilize all their resources in the world to impede scientific and technological progress of other nations under the pretext of countering arms proliferation. It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Y_Phk8yS0

Second,
Any change must be structural and fundamental both in theory and practice, involving all domains of our life. The outdated mechanisms which themselves were instrumental in and the root cause for present problems in human societies can never be used to bring changes and create our desired world. Liberalism and capitalism that have alienated human beings from heavenly and moral values will never bring happiness for humanity because they are the main source of all misfortune wars, poverty and deprivation.

We have all seen that how the inequitable economic structures controlled by certain political interests have been used to plunder national wealth of countries for the benefit of a group of corrupt business giants. The present structures are incapable of reforming the present situation.

The political and economic structures created following the World War II that was based on intentions to dominate the world failed to promote justice and lasting security.

Rulers whose hearts do not beat for the love of humankind and who sacrificed the spirit of justice in their minds never offer the promise of peace and friendship to humanity. By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. Because based on the divine traditions referred to as a principle in the Holy Quran, the wrong like the bubbles on the surface of water, will disappear. There remains only what that can be used forever towards the interest of human societies.

We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.

Third,
All problems existing in our world today emanate from the fact that rulers have distanced themselves from human values, morality and the teachings of divine messengers. Regrettably, in the current international relations, selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. The belief in the One God has been replaced with selfishness. Some have taken the place of God and insist to impose their values and wishes on others. Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in interactions is called foresight and statesmanship; looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is introduced as a gift towards promotion of freedom and democracy, and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights.

Friends and Colleagues;
Settlement of global problems and administration of justice and maintenance of peace will only be materialized with collective determination and cooperation of all nations and states. The age of polarizing the world on the premises of the hegemony or domination of a few governments is over.

Today we must rise together in a collective commitment against the present challenges; we must take change seriously and help others through collective work to return to the basic moral and human values. Messengers were sent by God to show the light of the truth to human kind, they came to make people aware of their individual and social obligations. Piety, having faith to Allah and its judgment of human behavior or conduct in the next world, belief in the primacy of justice in both lives, seeking one’s happiness, well being and security in the happiness, well-being and security of others, respecting human kind, making efforts to expand love and compassion against hostility were all on top of the teachings offered by the Messengers of God from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and the last one Prophet Mohamamd (PUH). All of them came to do something to eliminate war and ignorance, to eradicate poverty and uproot discrimination in order to spread happiness in the entire world. They are the best gifts that God Almighty has granted to human beings.

If the belief in Entezar (awaiting patiently for the Imam to return) will turn into a common and we join hands to achieve prosperity for all, then there will be more real and increasing hopes for reform.

Fourth,
In my opinion, we have several important agendas in front of us. The Secretary- General and the UN General Assembly can take the lead by undertaking necessary measures for the fulfillment of our shared goals on the basis of:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=17DILY19lxs

Restructuring the United Nations in order to transform this world body to an efficient and fully democratic organization, capable of playing an impartial, equitable, and effective role in the international relations; reforming the structure of the Security Council, specially by abolishing the discriminatory privilege of veto right; restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony; putting an end to all types of interferences in the affairs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and in all countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

As our great Prophet said, a government may survive with blasphemy, but never with oppression. Oppression against Palestinians and violation of their rights still continue; a new group of Palestinians who lived in al-Qod al-Sharif were again forced out of their homes as the destruction of their residential homes continues by the occupiers; bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan have not yet sopped; and Guantanamo Prison has not yet been shut down and there are still secret prisons in Europe.

Continuation of the present situation adds to hostilities and violence. Oppression and military aggression must be stopped. Regrettably, official reports concerning the brutalities of the Zionist regime in Gaza have not been completely published. The Secretary-General and the United Nations have crucial responsibilities in this respect and the international community is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza.

Reforming the current economic structures and setting up a new international economic order based on human and moral values and obligations. A new course is needed that would help promote justice and progress worldwide by flourishing the potentials and talents of all nations thus bringing well-being for all and for future generations;

Reforming the international political relations based on the promotion of lasting peace and friendship, eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;

Reforming cultural structures , respect for diverse customs and traditions of all nations, fostering moral values and spirituality aimed at institution of family as the backbone of all human societies;

Worldwide efforts to protect the environment and full observance of the international agreements and arrangements to prevent the annihilation of nature’s non-renewable resources.

Fifth,
Our nation has successfully gone through a glorious and fully- democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions. They entrusted me once more with a large majority this heavy responsibility.

And now, I want to declare that our great nation that has made great contribution to the world civilization, and the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the most democratic and progressive governments of the world is ready to mobilize all its cultural, political and economic capabilities to engage into constructive process aimed at addressing the international concerns and challenges. Our country has been a main victim of terrorism and the target of an all-out military aggression during the first decade of the revolution.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5AWG2btP4

All through the past thirty years we have been subject to hostile attitudes of those who supported Saddam’s military aggression and his use of chemical weapons against us, and then they took military action in Iraq to get rid of him. Today, our nation seeks to create a world in which justice and compassion prevail. We announce our commitment to participate in the process of building a durable peace and security worldwide for all nations based on justice, spirituality and human dignity, while being dedicated to strongly defending our legitimate and legal rights.

To materialize these goals, our nation is prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us. No nation can claim to be free from the need to change and reform in this journey towards perfectness. We welcome real and humane changes and stand ready to actively engage in fundamental global reforms.

Therefore, we emphasize that: The only path to remain safe is to return to Monotheism (believing in the Oneness of God) and justice, and this is the greatest hope and opportunity in all ages and generations. Without belief in God and commitment to the cause of justice and fight against injustice and discrimination, the world architect would not get right.

Man is at the center of the universe. The man’s unique feature is his humanity. The same feature which seeks for justice, piety, love, knowledge, awareness and all other high values. These human values should be supported, and each and every fellow humans should be given the opportunity to acquire them. Neglecting any of them is tantamount to the omission of a constituting piece of humanity. These are common elements which connect all human communities and constitute the basis of peace, security and friendship.

The divine religions pay attention to all aspects of human life, including obedience to God, morality, justice, fighting oppression, and endeavor to establish just and good governance. Prophet Abraham called for Oneness of God against Nimrod, as Prophet Moses did the same against Pharaohs and the Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) did against the oppressors of their own time. They were all threatened to death and were forced out of their homelands. Without resistance and objection, the injustices would not be removed from the face of the earth.

Sixth,
Dear friends and colleagues;
The world is in continuous change and evolution. The promised destiny for the mankind is the establishment of the humane pure life. Will come a time when justice will prevail across the globe and every single human being will enjoy respect and dignity. That will be the time when the Mankind’s path to moral and spiritual perfectness will be opened and his journey to God and the manifestation of the God’s Divine Names will come true. The mankind should excel to represent the God’s ”knowledge and wisdom”, His “compassion and benevolence”, His “justice and fairness”, His “power and art”, and His “kindness and forgiveness”.

These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission. And this is the belief in Entezar (Awaiting patiently for the Imam to return). Waiting with patience for the rule of goodness and the governance of the Best which is a universal human notion and which is a source of nations’ hope for the betterment of the world.

They will come, and with the help of righteous people and true believers will materialize the man’s long-standing desires for freedom, perfectness, maturity, security and tranquility, peace and beauty. They will come to put an end to war and aggression and present the entire knowledge as well as spirituality and friendship to the whole world.

Yes; Indeed, the bright future for the mankind will come.

Dear friends,
In waiting for that brilliant time to come and in a collective commitment, let’s make due contributions in paving the grounds and preparing the conditions for building that bright future.

Long live love and spirituality; long live peace and security; long live justice and freedom.

God’s Peace and blessing be upon you all.

—-

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. Prime Minister Netanyahu speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009
2. Hamas uses UN General Assembly endorsment of Goldstone report
3. Wat hebben Ahmadinejad en de Basiji gemeen