A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

[Sirotnikov]

Look at it this way. Even in situations where a critical vote is warrented, the US will vetoe anything critical of Israel. This situation it was not warranated, therefore how could we expect the US to do anything but veto the resolution. But Syria gets to make the US again look like the bad guy in the Arab world.

When did the US veto a UN statement that was even-handed or when has even a situation been really truely only Israel's fault?

[chequita guevara]

Lotsa times. You're little war mongers.

[Sirotnikov]

I though it was time to pull this old article out of the drawer, to prove how real Oerdin's doubts are.

This is a translated interview of Faysal Al-Husseini. The deceased PA Minister for Jerusalem. To give you some idea of the popularity of his view - he was considered among the most stech co-existance supporters on the Palestinain political map.

And to counter a point which you will meet in his speech: He claims that all Israelis hope for a country from the Nile to the Euphreet river. This is wildly untrue. There are maybe 10% of Israelis who feel this way, and some 30% more who hope that Israel would someday lie between the Sea and the Jordan river. I can honestly say that probably around 60% of Israelis think that Israel should and will be without Gaza and the West Bank. And around 40% think it will lack the Golan Heights as well.

MEMRI
Special Dispatch Series - No. 236
July 2, 2001 No.236

Faysal Al-Husseini in his Last Interview: The Oslo Accords Were a Trojan Horse; The Strategic Goal is the Liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea'

On his way to Kuwait, where he later died of a heart attack, Faysal Al-Husseini gave what turned out to be his last interview to the Egyptian (Nasserite) daily, 'Al-Arabi'. Following are excerpts from the interview with reporter Shafiq Ahmad Ali:[1]

The Oslo Accords: A Trojan Horse

Q: "What is happening now, unfortunately, is a natural consequence of Arafat's signing the Oslo Accords which did not explicitly state that the settlements should be removed, or even [their construction] halted…and did not explicitly determine the future of Jerusalem and the right of return…but - among other mistakes you recently admit - it did explicitly state that the PA must confiscate weapons from Palestinian civilians…"

A: "Following the signing of the Oslo Accords… I said three things:

First, following a long period of "pregnancy" we brought a child into the world [the Oslo Accords] who is smaller, weaker, and uglier than what we had hoped for. However, despite it all, this is still our child, and we must nurture, strengthen and develop it so that he is able to stand on his own two feet."

"Second, we are the Jews of the 21st Century. Meaning, we the Palestinians will be the Jews of the early [previous] century. They infiltrated our country using various methods; using all kinds of passports, and they suffered greatly in the process. They even had to face humiliation but they did it all for one goal: To enter our country and root themselves in it prior to our expulsion out of it. We must act in the same way they did. [We must] return [to the land], settle it, and develop new roots in our land from where we were expelled; whatever the price may be."

"Third, the [ancient] Greek Army was unable to break into Troy due to [internal] disputes and disagreements [among themselves]. The Greek forces started retreating one after the other, and the Greek king ended up facing the walls of Troy all by himself, and he too suffered from illnesses and [internal] disputes, and ended up leading a failed assault on Troy's walls."

"[Following these events] the people of Troy climbed on top of the walls of their city and could not find any traces of the Greek army, except for a giant wooden horse. They cheered and celebrated thinking that the Greek troops were routed, and while retreating, they left a harmless wooden horse as spoils of war. So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next."

"Had the U.S. and Israel not realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls."

"Despite the fact that we entered these walls in order to build, unlike the Greeks who entered in order to destroy, I now tell you all, all those to whom I spoke in a secret meeting during the days of Oslo: 'Climb into the horse and don't question what type of material the horse is made of. Climb into the horse, and we shall transform your climbing into that horse into a beginning of a building era rather than an era of the end of hope."'

"And indeed, there are those who climbed unto the horse and are [now] inside [the PA territory] whether they supported the Oslo Accords or not."

Q: "But the horse began to ignore criticism from the people, both from those who supported Oslo and those who opposed it. [It ignored] criticism about the true democracy that should lead the horse and about the horse's corruption."

A: "Your words remind me of the famous meeting we had with all the Palestinian factions three years following Arafat and the PLO's return to Gaza… the debate revolved around the same issues you are raising – i.e., democracy, corruption, etc."

"In that meeting – and those who attended are still alive and can attest to it – I asked to speak. I told everyone: Three years ago I said 'Climb into the horse' and everyone entered into the horse and the horse entered into the walled-in [area]. Now, the time has come for us to say: 'Come out of the horse and start working. Don’t stay inside the horse and don't waist time and energy while you are inside the horse arguing whether this was a good horse or not. Look, it is thanks to this horse that you were able to get into the walled-in city."'

"So come down out of the horse and start working for the goal for which you entered the horse to begin with. In my opinion, the Intifada itself is the coming down out of the horse. Rather than getting into the old arguments… this effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…"

"Praise Allah, by now we have all come out of the horse, those who were with Arafat and those from the opposition. Personally, I never had any complaints regarding the fact that they entered the horse while being opposed to it. However, I would have complaints had they stayed inside the horse and never came out of it. Now that we all came out of the horse, I ask of you and of all journalists to lay aside all the analyses of past events, all the old disputes, and judge people on the basis of what they are actually doing now…our slogan from now on should be "The Intifada is always right…"''

The Strategic Goal: A State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

Q: "What are the borders of the Palestinian state you are referring to, and what kind of 'Jerusalem' would you accept as the capital of your state?"

A: "With this question you are dragging me into talking about what we refer to as our "strategic" goals and our "political" goals, or the phased goals. The "strategic" goals are the "higher goals," the "long-term goals," or the "unwavering goals," the goals that are based on solid Pan-Arab historic rights and principles. Whereas the "political" goals are those goals which were set for a temporary timeframe, considering the [constraints of] the existing international system, the balance of power, our own abilities, and other considerations which "vary" from time to time."

"When we are asking all the Palestinian forces and factions to look at the Oslo Agreement and at other agreements as "temporary" procedures, or phased goals, this means that we are ambushing the Israelis and cheating them. However, the truth is that we are doing exactly what they are doing. The proof for that is that they are aware of, and are not trying to hide, the fact that there is nothing that unites them more around the territory which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates, than their slogan, which was taken from the Torah, and reads: 'These are the borders of the greater land of Israel.'"

"If, for some reason, they had to temporarily declare their state over "a part" of the greater land of Israel, they would publicly declare that this is their "political" strategy, which they will have to temporarily accept due to international circumstances. On the other hand, their "higher strategy" is always "The Greater Land of Israel."

"We are [acting] exactly like them. In 1947, in accordance with [the UN] Partition Plan, they decided to declare statehood on 55% of the land of Palestine, which they later increased to 78% during the War of 1948, and then again [increased it] to 100% during the War of 1967. Despite all that, they never attempted to make secret of their long-term goal, which is "Greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates. Similarly, if we agree to declare our state over what is now only 22% of Palestine, meaning the West Bank and Gaza – our ultimate goal is [still] the liberation of all historical Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations."

"In short, we are exactly like they are. We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure. If you are asking me as a Pan-Arab nationalist what are the Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will immediately reply: "From the river to the sea." Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation, a land no one can sell or buy, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it, even if this requires time and even [if it means paying] a high price."

"If you are asking me, as a man who belongs to the Islamic faith, my answer is also "From the river to the sea," the entire land is an Islamic Waqf which can not be bought or sold, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it …"

"If you are asking me as an ordinary Palestinian, from the "inside" or from the Diaspora, you will get the same answer and without any hesitations. However, what I am able to achieve and live on right now, due to [constraints of] the international system, is not, of course, Palestine "From the river to the sea." In order for us to fulfill all of our dreams regarding Palestine, we must, first of all, wake up and realize where we are standing. On the other hand, if we will continue to behave as if we are still dreaming, we will not find a place to put our feet on..."

"As I once said in the past: our eyes must continue to focus on the higher goal. The real danger is that I might forget [it], and while advancing towards my short-term goal I might turn my back on my long-term goal, which is the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea…"

--
[1] 'Al-Arabi' (Egypt), June 24, 2001. Subtitles are given by the translator.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
while I agree that germany has a special relationship with Israel, I don't think it is what made them abstain. I think they do realize that Israel is not to blame for the whole escalation.

You are kidding, right? Sharon has quite skilfully managed to keep a hard line no matter what the Palestinians did. You can whine on about Arafat all you like, the fact is that he has little real power.

Wasn't there supposed to be a cease fire a while back? IIRC there were no bombings for a while but Israeli forces kept up assassinations and other "activities" in the WB.

You guys aren't fooling anyone.

When I was a small boy people in my country tended to support Israel after events such as the Munich attack and the Entebbe raid. But since the invasion of Lebanon Israel's reputation has been on a slow decline, which has increased rapidly since the peace process started going south. You have no idea of how much you guys are hated now - it's getting to the level of detestation that people had for the apartheid regime. And it's not anti-semitism (how often that ridiculous card gets played), but a simple recognition that you are beating up on a helpless bunch of people whose land and livelihoods you stole.

All we see is tanks running over children, beatings and blockades and the desperate and attempts of a conquered people to take some sort of pathetic revenge by the only means available to them. You must really think everyone else is stupid. We know that Palestinian civilians are dying at a far greater rate than Israelis - so the attempt to paint Israel as the victim is not fooling anyone other than rabid conservatives. Only in the United States does this really fly. Here in Canada few regular people are fooled.

In the rest of the civilized world you are viewed as a rogue state supported by another state which is quickly being assigned rogue status.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Dyl: I never said Germany supported the Israel cabinet's recent vote and simply asked why Germany abstained from the vote. The anwser based upon your quote and what others have said is that the German government does agree with the Syrian bill but that they were afraid to vote for it out of fear of being called anti-semitic.

It agrees with most of it, and disagrees with some. And you apparantly gave a gross distortion of its content in your initial post. And fear of being called antisemitic is getting quickly irrelevant. The term has been overused to the point of being meaningless.

[HershOstropoler]

Re: Re: Re: A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Arafat thinks he'll get more from violence then from peace there for he has always refused peace and so he is an obstical to peace.

So does and is Sharon. Also Sharon and Arafat have both polled the rug under Mazen. There was, for example, a nice list in Haaretz of Israeli actions during the so called ceasefire.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: A question about the recent votes on the UNSC.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Recently the US vetoed a UNSC bill, put forth by Syria, which would have solely blamed Israel for the recent mid-east violence and would have condemned Israel for threatening to kill or excile Yasser Arafat.

That's bogus Oerdin.

The United States today vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution specifically demanding that Israel not deport or threaten the safety of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Eleven members voted in favour and three abstained on the resolution, which was sponsored by Council members Pakistan and Syria, along with South Africa and the Sudan.

The defeated text also demanded "the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction" and expressed full support for the Road Map peace plan.

Check this UNSC news artcile for details.

[Sirotnikov]

You are kidding, right? Sharon has quite skilfully managed to keep a hard line no matter what the Palestinians did.

There is absolutely no reason for Sharon not to keep a hard line. It is after all two competing sides bargaining for something. Both present a hard line. Fine. But the difference is that one side includes slaughtering innocent civilians as part of it's negociating policy. That makes Israel stop the negociations, and go to war.

And there is absolutely no claim for your second statement beyond random declrations by... Arafat spokesmen.:

You can whine on about Arafat all you like, the fact is that he has little real power.

Infact if you read another thread of mine I conviniently bumped, you'll see Palestinian government officials admitting what exact powers Arafat has got.

Wasn't there supposed to be a cease fire a while back? IIRC there were no bombings for a while but Israeli forces kept up assassinations and other "activities" in the WB.

That is completely an utterly incorrect.

Ever since the temporary cease fire (which is what "hudna" the arab term used, really means) Israel has stopped it's assassinations, and brought it's arrest activities to a minimum. Infact it even completely withdrew from 2 palestinain cities, and stopped any activities within, giving Abu-Mazen the opportunity to show his stuff.

Instead of doing something actual, Abu-Mazen kept just talking with the terrorists. Which they saw as a sign of weakness, and repaid him with a terract in Israel on August 20th IIRC.

You guys aren't fooling anyone.

No we aren't. The Palestinians are.

When I was a small boy people in my country tended to support Israel after events such as the Munich attack and the Entebbe raid. But since the invasion of Lebanon Israel's reputation has been on a slow decline, which has increased rapidly since the peace process started going south. You have no idea of how much you guys are hated now - it's getting to the level of detestation that people had for the apartheid regime.

Which is wildly uncalled for and is due to the lious propoganda of Palestinians and some of their extreme-lefty bretherin, that see Israel as a representative of capitalism and imperalism.

And it's not anti-semitism (how often that ridiculous card gets played), but a simple recognition that you are beating up on a helpless bunch of people whose land and livelihoods you stole.

Incorrect.

It is anti-semitism because different standards are used for Israel and every other nation or non-nation on this planet.

When the UN soldiers were attacked in Africa, they started shooting live bullets at crowds of people, claiming that "every person in that crowd was intent on harming UN soldiers, thus they were all animous".

Israel attempts it's best to only hit militants, and is wildly blamed for mistakenly killing civilians. This even though war laws put the blame for civilians killed, strictly at guerilla forces who hide among civilian population.


Also, since you are watching this conflict through your renowned commie-glasses, all you see is an "imperlial power vs. poor underdog" struggle, when the reality is very different.

Take off the damn red glasses mate.

The palestinains have a ton of support and international legitimacy, and if they have peacefully used politics to achieve their goals, they could have gotten the 67' areas by now, and more.

But they chose to turn to terror, not because they couldn't get it otherwise, but because they thought it wasn't enough, and wasn't fast enough. There are enough quotes by palestinian ministers in arab newspapers, proving that the whole intifada was planned in advanced by Arafat, to boost his position in the peace talks.

All we see is tanks running over children, beatings and blockades and the desperate and attempts of a conquered people to take some sort of pathetic revenge by the only means available to them.

All you see is tanks roaming the streets, inter-edited with children throwing stones, so you assume tanks are running over children.

You are not shown palestinian thugs publically execution people whom they don't like or deem traitors for any reason.

You are not shown terrorists working on bombs. You are not shown terrorists attempting to inflitrate Israel. You are not even shown the insides of an exploded bus.

Fighting against a guerilla force hiding in a civilian population, is never a battle which looks good on TV.

You also believe the claims that the terrorist attacks are some sort of revenge, when palestinian spokesmen both from Hamas and Fatah (Arafat's party) practically admit it's a strategic tool mean to "drive jews out".

You also believe that the end-goal justifies the means, and believe in relative morality, since you "forgive" the terrorists for their brutal murderous actions, and instead describe it as "poor pathetic revenge" instead of what it is - "coldblood meditated murder".

You must really think everyone else is stupid. We know that Palestinian civilians are dying at a far greater rate than Israelis - so the attempt to paint Israel as the victim is not fooling anyone other than rabid conservatives.

This is again a fallacy.

Palestinain civilians are dying at a far greater rate because they are used for cover by cowering terrorists.

Palestinian civilains are dying at a far greater rate, because the Palestinain figures count dead-suicide bombers in their "civilians" lists.

Palestinain civilians are dying at a far greater rate, because all it takes for a palestinian terrorist to become a civilian, is to give his gun to someone else, before a TV crew rushes to him.

Palestinian civilians are dying at a far greater rate, because instead of doing everything to stop youth from coming into conflict with armed soldiers, the palestinian leadership is doing everything in its power to istigate them to become martyrs, using TV, universities, schoolbooks, radio, posters, mosques etc.