The Palestinian Goal

Well, of course their goal is to drive the Israeli’s into the sea. But in polite company, their stated goal is a bit different. It’s all about statehood, borders bla bla bla. And Obama is ON BOARD with that, per his speech on Thursday. When people pointed this out, Obama said everyone misunderstood what he was saying.

But Mr. Obama’s problem isn’t, as he supposes, that people aren’t paying close enough attention to him. On the contrary, they’ve noticed that on Thursday Mr. Obama called for Israel to make territorial concessions to some approximation of the ’67 lines before an agreement is reached on the existential issues of refugees and Jerusalem. “Moving forward now on the basis of territory and security,” he said, “provides a foundation to resolve these two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.”

Mr. Obama neglected to mention these points on Sunday, hence the telling omission. But the essence of his proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn’t even amount to a land-for-peace formula.

Because, why not? Right?

I mean, remember how well it worked the last time Israel ceded land to the Palenstinians? Did that bring peace?

I’ve got a great idea. Israel will cede land when the Palestinians acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

And what of the Palestinians, with whom Israel would presumably be negotiating these “land swaps”? The president acknowledged that “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with those who do not recognize its right to exist.” How to account then for Obama’s timing? The Palestinian Authority and Hamas have just inked a unity accord. After the ceremony in Cairo, Mahmoud Abbas made clear that Hamas had surrendered none of its extremism to get the deal: “It is not required of Hamas to recognize Israel. We will form a government of technocrats and we will not ask Hamas to recognize Israel.”


Abbas says that Israel has the right to exist, but that they must cede East Jerusalem as a precondition for any peace settlement.

Palestinians have made Jerusalem a cornerstone of their demands. It’s to be their capital. Why? Politics. It is of minor religious importance to Muslims – dare I say – hardly any. Jerusalem isn’t mentioned once in the Qur’an. Daniel Pipes:

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting “We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem” and their brethren in Jordan yell “We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa”? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect “the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world”? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

In other related stories, this American Thinker article on the myth of the Palestinian refugee camps.

The 860,000 or so who left in 1948 have grown to 4.8 million “registered refugees” living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Of this number, 1.4 million are “RRCs” — registered refugees in camps.

Of course, these “camps” aren’t exactly tent cities.

Keep in mind also that the tent cities in the desert from 1948 are long gone. Over the past sixty-three years the United Nations and the United States have poured billions into the camps to upgrade living conditions. What Palestinian advocates like to call “camp shelters” or “CS’s” are typically 4-5 story concrete apartment buildings with electricity, kitchens, satellite television tuned to al-Jazeera, and municipal garbage collection. According to the UN, 99.8% of camp shelters are “connected to water networks” and 87% are “connected to sewerage networks.” In other words, Palestinian camps are modern cities. Yes, they are overcrowded, with high unemployment, and I wouldn’t want to live there. The infrastructure in these so-called refugee camps is however far superior to the shantytowns in Dhaka, Calcutta, Soweto, Kinshasa, Rio de Janeiro, Lagos, Jakarta, and many other cities where hundreds of millions live without running water, in shacks cobbled together from scraps of tin and cardboard, with open sewers running through the streets.

Let’s not forget who’s paying for this:

The conduit for most of the money pouring into the Palestinian camps is the UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, which was set up as a temporary agency in 1949. Its current budget is $1.2 billion, which compares to the total “regular” U.N budget of $4.9 billion. Including all “extrabudgetary” programs (which includes UNRWA), the total 2010-11 UN budget is $13.9 billion. Thus the UN spends an amount equal to 25% of its regular budget, or 8.6% of its total budget on 0.08% of the world’s population.


Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

6 Comments on “The Palestinian Goal”

  1. Svenster Says:

    You would think that 63 years of being a refugee would be enough; that being perpetually outraged about the slightest offense against Islam would wear thin. But no, we are dealing with a philosophy that demands misery and death in this world. There will be no peace in the Mideast, ever.

  2. agiledog Says:

    There will be no peace in the Mideast, ever.

    And that, unfortunately, is the truth. At least until the oil runs out. And then the rest of the world will no longer put up with this shit from the Muslims.

  3. MJ Says:

    Obama and his team believe that Syria is the key a larger peace in the ME. They think that Syria will make a peace treaty with Israel, effectively breaking with Iran, Lebanon would follow, thereby allowing for a 2 state solution. Hence the silence on Assad’s massacre happening there now.

    Reality: Assad is in a shaky position and making peace with Israel would topple his regime. His people and the army would abandon him. Syria can only look to Iran and Hezbollah for help, strengthening their bond, not weakening it. Obama’s lack of action has guaranteed that there will be no ME peace for at least another generation.

    Foreign policy FAIL.

  4. Svenster Says:

    On the brighter side, at least the world didn’t end last week.

  5. Car in Says:

    Maybe none of us were worthy of being “taken up.”

  6. Sean M. Says:

    There will be no peace in the Mideast, ever.

    It’s not nice or hopeful to say so under my scenario, but yes there will, if the Israelis are forced to make peace.

    If there is a situation (and I hate to think about it) where the Jewish State gets pushed to the brink, there will be peace in the Mideast for at least a few generations after millions and millions of Muslims lay dead. It’s not a pretty scenario, but I think it’s what could happen. I hope not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: