“Huma Abedin, one of Hillary’s main advisors, has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood which supports the terrorist organization Hamas”
TRUMP’S CRUSADE: TO EXPEL THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
by Ezequiel Doiny
On october 14, 2016 Dr Rich Sweier posted “Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who in the early 1970s had been affiliated with the Muslim Students Association at Western Michigan University.
Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood‘s division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
When Huma was two, the Abedin family relocated from Michigan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This move took place when Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), recruited his former AU colleague, Syed Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank that Naseef was preparing to launch. A number of years later, Naseef would develop close ties to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al Qaeda. Naseef also spent time (beginning in the early 1980s) as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy points out, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” IMMA’s close ties to the Muslim World League are further evidenced by the fact that IMMA’s in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), has long listed its officialaddress as 46 Goodge Street in London — precisely the same address as that of the Muslim World League’s London office. In one noteworthy article written by Abedin’s mother,JMMA blamed America for having brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself. Another JMMA piece, from 1999, alleged that Jewish Americans who were pro-Israel had been able to “work the [political] system” in the United States to their own advantage, and had been “greatly aided by the American memory of the Holocaust.”
It is vital to note that IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.” For details about this agenda, click here.
At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton’s successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008.
From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University‘s (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization’s “Social Committee.”
It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and “spiritual guide” of GWU’s MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU’s MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’sbrother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. Both Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.
From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its aforementioned publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA. Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.
Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as “a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates.” “At meetings on the region,” continued the profile, “… Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out.”
When Mrs. Clinton was appointed as President Barack Obama‘s Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin’s name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs‘ masthead.
Apart from their working relationship, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton have also developed a close personal bond over their years together, as reflected in Clinton’s 2010 assertion that: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” In 2011, Secretary Clinton paid a friendly visit to Abedin’s mother, Saleha, in Saudi Arabia. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton publicly described her aide’s position as “very important and sensitive.”
On July 10, 2010, Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim, married then-congressman Anthony Weiner in a ceremony officiated by former president Bill Clinton. A number of analysts have noted that it is extremely rare for Islamic women—particularly those whose families have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—to marry non-Muslims like Weiner, who is Jewish. Indeed, Dr. Anwar Shoeb, the highest-ranking faculty authority at the prestigious College of Sharia and Islamic Studies in Kuwait, formally declared that Abedin’s marriage to Weiner was “null and void” under the dictates of Sharia Law, which explicitly forbids matrimony between a Muslim woman and an “infidel”; in fact, Shoeb classified the Abedin-Weiner union as a form of “adultery.”
Abedin went on maternity leave after giving birth to a baby boy in early December 2011. When she returned to work in June 2012, the State Department granted her an arrangement that allowed her to do earn outside income as a private consultant, even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. This arrangement was made possible when Mrs. Clinton personally signed off on documents—dated March 23, 2012—that changed Abedin’s title from “deputy chief off staff” to “special government employee.” Abedin’s outside clients included the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo (a New York-based global advisory firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton).
Abedin did not disclose on her financial report either the special employment arrangement or the $135,000 she earned from it, in violation of a law mandating that public officials reveal significant sources of income. In fact, her title change did not become public knowledge until May 2013. Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arrangement where a government employee maintains private clients.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit showed that both before and after Mrs. Clinton signed off on the special employment deal for Abedin in March 2012, Abedin repeatedly—for months on end—dodged State Department requests that she disclose financial and employment information about her husband, Anthony Weiner, who had left Congress amid personal scandal in June 2011. For details about Abedin’s repeated failures to comply with those requests, click here.
In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials. One letter, noting that Huma Abedin’s position with Hillary Clinton “affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking,” expressed concern over the fact that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” Some other prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner disavowed the concerns articulated in the letters.
On February 1, 2013—Hillary Clinton’s final day as Secretary of State—Abedin resigned her post as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Yet she would continue to serve as a close aide to Clinton.
In early March 2015, it was reported that throughout her entire four-year tenure as Secretary of State (SOS), HillaryClinton had never acquired or used a government email account, and instead had transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official government correspondences via a personal email account that was housed on a private server. In addition, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also had email addresses on the secret server while employed at the State Department.
After Hillary Clinton announced in the spring of 2015 that she was running for president (2016), Abedin was named vice chair of the Clinton campaign.
On August 28, 2016, the New York Post published excerpts and photos from sexually explicit texting exchanges in which Weiner had engaged with two women in the summer of 2015. The next day, Huma Abedin announced that she was separating from Weiner. She said in a statement: “After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband. Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life. During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy.”
Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.
Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.”
see also http://drrichswier.com/2016/10/14/57465/
On August 18, 2016 Aryeh Savir reported in World Israel News that “Israeli diplomats, the prime minister’s office and foreign ministry officials are reportedly preparing for the possibility that President Barack Obama will launch a last-ditch diplomatic initiative during the interim period between the elections in November and the swearing-in of the elected president in January.
Israel Radio in a Wednesday report quoted an Israeli source that said that the initiative includes a proposal submitted to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on the two-state solution, based on the pre-1967 lines, which could later serve as an opening position for future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
This would severely hinder Israel’s maneuvering abilities during any upcoming negotiations.
Israel Radio’s report also quoted an “Israeli source familiar with the matter” who called the pending initiative “a problematic issue.,,”
If Obama approves a Palestinian UNSC resolution that imposes a timeline for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank based on the 67 lines this will enable Hamas to control of Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s Old City since Hamas is favorite to win the Palestinian Municipal elections, the October 8 Municipal elections have been postponed but pols show that Hamas will win the elections in the new date.
On August 21, 2016 Alex Fishman wrote in Ynet news that “Hamas is about to take over the municipal centers of power in the West Bank in a legal and democratic way in several weeks time as part of its plan to take over the entire Palestinian Authority—but we, as we always do, may have missed the train yet again.
It started just like any other minor event the neighbors were holding. When Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that municipal elections would take place on October 8 (this date has been postponed), Hamas said it wouldn’t participate—and Israel lost interest.
The Palestinian leader was sure he was going to recreate his success in the 2012 local elections, when Hamas expressed its distrust of the PA and decided not to take part. Abbas’s representatives defeated themselves that year, and even that was a hard-won battle due to the PA’s distinct lack of popularity.
However, Hamas lulled everyone into a false sense of security and then, all of a sudden, dropped a bombshell two weeks ago when the terror group announced it would participate in the elections, setting the entire West Bank aflame. The entire situation changed at once.
And it’s not just Hamas. The left wing factions in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and even Islamic Jihad—which has never participated in any elections—announced that they will run too.
No analysts or commentators predicted this. Everyone—both on the Israeli and Palestinian side—fell out of their seats, while the PA went into shock.
These elections are no longer just a vote over sanitary conditions in the Palestinian cities, but rather a process with national and political significance that threatens to unseat Fatah from the centers of power in the West Bank.
Some 2.6 million eligible Palestinian voters will go to the polls in 416 local authorities in Gaza and the West Bank—141 of them considered cities or large towns, and 13 are major cities. Even in the most optimistic predictions in the PA, no one has any doubt that Hamas is about to sweep many areas and large cities.
The Palestinian electoral registry in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was completed a little over a month ago, which was probably the moment Hamas decided to throw its hat into the ring. By mid-August, the organization will have revealed its candidates. It will likely present its candidates as “independents,” to stop Israel and the PA from banning them over the fact they are affiliated with Hamas. Hamas might also try to establish coalitions with left-wing organizations and others to oust Fatah candidates in areas where Abbas’s party holds more sway…
In tandem with Hamas’s announcement that it would participate in the municipal process, the head of its political bureau, Khaled Mashal, was quoted in Arab media as saying there was no reason not to have negotiations with the enemy (Israel)—under certain political circumstances. This is an unprecedented statement meant for Israeli and Western ears, to assuage concerns over a Hamas victory in the local elections…
Hamas was quick to deny these reported comments from Mashal, but his words were nevertheless well received in the region and helped prepare public opinion to the organization’s participation in the elections.
Israel is not buying these hidden messages. The municipal elections held in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip in 2004-2005 ended with Hamas coming out on top and served as a preview for the general elections in 2006, when the terror organization was also victorious. At the time, a national Palestinian government headed by Hamas was established and lasted for about six months, until the terror group brutally kicked Fatah out of the Strip, leading Abbas to dismantle the government and cut ties with Hamas.
Now, Israeli officials believe that an achievement by Hamas in the municipal elections will not only make a “lame duck” out of Abbas, but also lead the Gaza rulers, like in 2005, to demand general and presidential elections, following which it will work to achieve its greatest dream: Taking over the PLO.
General and presidential elections could bring to naught all of Israel’s “day after” plans for Abbas’s successors, reaching a regional agreement and making interim measures—as Hamas will be the one ruling in the West Bank. The policy of treating Gaza and the West Bank as two separate political entities, which has been the basis for Israel’s official policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians since the Hamas takeover in 2007—will be no more. Hamas will be the sovereign in both Gaza and the West Bank…
Political analysts in Israel are predicting a victory for Hamas in the city of Hebron, in the nearby towns and villages, and in southern Mount Hebron area—a dedicated Hamas stronghold that hasn’t gone to the polls in 40 years. The terror organization is also expected to win in Jenin and in Nablus, where Adly Yaish, who is affiliated with Hamas and has already served as the mayor of Nablus, is expected to run again. Hamas is also likely to claim victory in Qalqilya, where Wajih Kawas, a known Hamas politician who spent time in Israeli prison, will run. The results in Tulkarm remain uncertain, but many other bad surprises are expected as the Palestinian Authority pays the price of 20 years of corruption and neglect…
If Hamas does indeed take over the majority of the major cities in the West Bank, how exactly could Israel have talks with municipality leaders affiliated with an organization it does not talk to? And what is Israel going to do if the mayor of Qalqilya, on the border of Kfar Saba, decides to arm his inspectors with guns, or establish a local armed police? Will the IDF set out to disarm the Qalqilya police?…”
Statements by Hamas leaders published by the ADL website:
“Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip commenting on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, May 2, 2011
“We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood…We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”
Sermon delivered by ‘Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011, translation by MEMRI
“Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him.
“The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah.
“Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world.
“The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth.”
Statement from Hamas Ministry of Refugee Affairs on U.N. Relief and Works Agency plan to include Holocaust education in the curriculum taught Palestinian refugees, February 28, 2011
“We cannot agree to a programme that is intended to poison the minds of our children…Holocaust studies in refugee camps is a contemptible plot and serves the Zionist entity with a goal of creating a reality and telling stories in order to justify acts of slaughter against the Palestinian people.”
Hamas official Halil Al-Hayya, Al-Hayat newspaper, November 11, 2010
“The lie of the Zionist Holocaust crumbles with countless holocausts committed by the Zionists in Beit Hanoun, al-Fakhoura school and other places in Palestine.”
“Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it, with the exception of those who lived on the land of Palestine before World War I.”
Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, Future News TV, June 15, 2010, Source: MEMRI.org
“We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land…
“Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy. ”
Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar, Al-Aqsa TV, January 4, 2009
Hamas “must lay the foundation for a tomorrow without Zionists.”
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, December 28, 2008
“We are stronger, and more determined, and have more will, and we will hold onto our rights even more than before.”
Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Mashaal, Damascus, Syria, December 27, 2008
“This is the time for the third uprising… Resistance will continue through suicide missions.”
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, calling for a resumption of suicide attacks on Gaza radio, December 27, 2008
“Hamas will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood.”
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, December 25, 2008
“Israel will pay a heavy price for its crimes against the Palestinians. Israel’s actions enhance our determination to pursue the path of resistance through all means available. … [Israel is] committing a holocaust as the whole world watches and doesn’t lift a finger to stop it.”
Leaflet issued by Izzadin Kassam, the armed wing of Hamas, December 25, 2008
“We won’t succumb to the logic of threats made by the Zionist war criminals. Today we are prepared more than ever to foil any aggression against our people.”
Hamas leader Ayman Taha, December 22, 2008
“It is our right as an occupied people to defend ourselves from the occupation by all means possible including suicide attacks.”
Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhum, October 7, 2008; as reported by AFP and other news agencies
[The economic crisis is the result of] “bad administrative and financial management and a bad banking system put into place and controlled by the Jewish lobby.”
[The Jewish lobby] “controls the U.S. elections and defines the foreign policy of any new administration in a manner that allows it to retain control of the American government and economy.”
Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007
“…the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: ‘I kill, therefore I am’… Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah’s will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs].”
Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, April 20, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007
“This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our nation was tested by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation… Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine… Make us victorious over the community of infidels… Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies… Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them.”
Hamas statement in response to criticism by Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahri, March 12, 2007
“We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. . . So be assured doctor Ayman, and all those who love Palestine like yourself, that Hamas is still the group you knew when it was founded and it will never abandon its path.”
Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman, April 17, 2006
“[The Tel Aviv suicide bombing] is an an act of self defense… [it is] a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people.”
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader, February 3, 2006, Al-Hayyat al-Jedida
“[Hamas will] never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was founded on our land.”
Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader, after casting his vote in the Gaza Strip, January 25, 2006, Ha’aretz
“[Hamas] will not change a single word in its covenant [which is calling for the destruction of Israel].”
Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Reuters
“They have tried to pressure Hamas to abandon resistance and to abandon arms. They tried to pressure Hamas to abandon its strategic choice in Palestine, all of Palestine. They tried to pressure Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. But they failed… We say Hamas will not change its constant principles.”
Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Gulf Daily News, Bahrain
“The constants and the strategy of Hamas do not change according to circumstances. Hamas will stay faithful to jihad, to resistance, to guns, to Palestine and to Jerusalem.”
Ismail Hanieh, Hamas leader, January 18, 2006, AP
“Hamas is not hostile to Jews because they are Jews. We are hostile to them because they occupied our land and expelled our people…. We did not say we want to throw the Jews in the sea or feed them to sharks. We just said that there is a land called occupied Palestine. It was burglarized and it needs to be returned to the Palestinian people.”
Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday
“We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land…. We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up.”
Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu-Zuhri, explains to Al-Sharq al-Awsat that there is no contradiction between Hamas’ platform for the election and its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, January 13, 2006, BBC Monitoring
“The program [of Hamas-backed list to legislative council] sets out the details and means for its implementation over the next four years, while the [Hamas] charter talks about vision and strategy…The movement is adhering to the constants and strategies outlined in the [Hamas] charter.”
Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, interview in Arabic with elaph.com, October 11, 2005, MEMRI
“The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators… We are not a copy of the Taliban… Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom….”
“We are part of Allah’s promise that Islam will enter Palestine and every home in the world, with a revelation of the power of Allah the Omnipotent, and a revelation of the inferiority of the infidels. Hamas is leading this plan in Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 territories, and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading it everywhere else. This is part of Allah’s predestination.”
Sheik Nizar Rayan, Hamas “political” leader, at a rally in Gaza, Al-Jazeera TV on September 16, 2005, MEMRI
“The vanquishing of the enemy in Gaza does not mean that this stage has ended. We still have Jerusalem and the pure West Bank. We will not rest until we liberate all our land, all our Palestine. We do not distinguish between what was occupied in the 1940s and what was occupied in the 1960s. Our Jihad continues, and we still have a long way to go. We will continue until the very last usurper is driven out of our land.”
Mushir al-Masri, Hamas spokesman, at a rally in Gaza, Al-Jazeera TV on September 16, 2005, MEMRI
“We stand here on our liberated land, near the armistice borders. We remember when Sharon said that Netzarim is like Tel Aviv. Hamas has said, via the lion of Palestine [Rantisi], that Gaza is like Tel Aviv. The promise that has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled in the future, oh Sharon, is the promise of Allah, and the promise of Hamas. Behold, Palestine is being liberated, Allah willing…”
“We have come here in multitudes to proclaim that Hirbiya and Ashkelon will be taken by the mujahideen. We have come here to say that the weapons of the resistance that you see here will remain, Allah willing, so that we can liberate Palestine – all of Palestine – from the Sea to the River, whether they like it or not.”
Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi (killed in April 2004) at a rally in Gaza, March 28, 2004, AP
“We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God, and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon.”
Hamas statement issued after the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2004
“The Zionists didn’t carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American Administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime. All the Muslims of the world will be honored to join in on the retaliation for this crime.”
Musa Abu Marzuq, Hamas leader, interview with Reuters, March 25, 2004
“We have never targeted an American target or American interests despite its hostility. Until now we did not. I am talking about now. In the future, God knows.”
Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, at funeral of Reem Raiyshi, who murdered 4 people, January 15, 2004, AP
“She [first Hamas woman suicide bomber] is not going to be the last because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.”
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas leader, June 10, 2003, interview with Al-Jazeera, Jerusalem Post
“By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews…”
“You will have no security except outside the homeland Palestine…. We have Allah on our side, and we have the sons of the Arab and Islamic nation on our side.”
Sheik Ahmed Yassin (killed in March 2004), January 30, 2003, Teheran Times
“America is implementing Zionist Israeli policy to serve the Zionist project in Palestine. The battle America is undertaking is designed to allow Israel to remain in the Palestinian homeland….”
“Zionist Israeli and Jewish policy is to strike every power emerging in the Arab and Muslim world… Any country that develops power threatening to this entity (Israel), they want to smash it.”
Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview with the Muslim website Alskifa, January 10, 2003, translated by Israel Defense Forces
“Suicide attacks and jihad reinforce national unity in the ranks….Our voice is one of struggle, of jihad and of suicide….Iraq could win if it equipped its citizens with explosive belts and turned them into human bombs.”
Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview with Australian Muslim youth magazine, Nida’ul Islam, June/ July 2002
“We reject this US domination and this frantic war. From our side, we concentrate on striking blows to it here in Palestine, with the aim of ironing out the Jewish entity in Palestine, which is the cause of trouble in the world…”
“America… always works in favor of the existence of the Israeli entity… This is mainly due to the Zionist-Christian conviction and the 70 million Americans who follow the Protestant creed, which is in favor of Jews against the Muslims. The same applies to most of Britain’s population…”
“Because the Israeli and American enemies are ravaging the earth; they do not believe in anything besides power. The Ummah must adopt the principle of Jihad and fighting the enemies.”
Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview, Palestine-info, March 2001, Early Hamas communiqués (distributed by Islamic Association for Palestine)
“The Movement within two months [after the intifada broke] was able to launch qualitative operations that shook the world… there are qualitative Jihad operations such as those in Natanya and Khadera. We are proud of such operations and the next days will witness better and bigger ones….”
“I say that the final battle will result in our victory and that this land will reject this enemy similar to its predecessors…”
“It is not a must that it would be in 2027 for it could be five years earlier or ten years later. The important thing is that the equation revolves round 2027 and the Hebrew state would end Insha’allah [God willing].”
Hamas communiqué, March 9, 1989, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine
“Come to jihad, come to jihad, come to martyrdom…”
“Those thirsty for Jihad all over the world. For the sake of Allah. For liberating the land of Palestine and Jerusalem….”
“We declared and continue to declare now, that a Jew is a Jew… [do not trust them when they say they want peace because they act only] to serve their religion and their people.”
Hamas communiqué, October 5, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine
“The Jews: killed the prophets…slaughtered the innocent…imprisoned our pious… NO PEACE WITH THE MURDERERS.”
Hamas communiqué, September 8, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine
“The Nazi Jews tried different methods…”
“Let everyone know that Hamas… is only against Jews and those twisted in their manner… it realizes the Jews’ methods in trying to cause hostility and friction between people…”
“We should lend punches to the Jews wherever possible [to commemorate Muhammad’s defeat of one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia].”
Select Hamas terrorist attacks published by the ADL website:
“September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
- August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
- August 28, 2005: A suicide bombing outside the Central Bus Station in Beersheba severly injured two security guards who stopped the bomber from entering the bus station.
- January 13, 2005: Six Israelis were killed and five other civilians were wounded in a double suicide bombing at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The two suicide bombers used a very large explosive device to blast through a defensive wall that separates the Israeli and Palestinian sides at the crossing. Following the blast, the bombers crossed into the Israeli side, carrying explosives on their bodies, which they detonated.
- August 28, 2004: Sixteen people, including a 3 year old, were killed and about 100 injured when two buses in Beersheba were attacked within minutes of each other by suicide bombers.
- June 28, 2004: A Kassam rocket fired by Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip struck near a nursery school in the northern Negev town of Sderot, killing an Israeli man and a 4-year old Israeli child.
- April 17, 2004: A border policeman was killed and three others wounded when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up at the Erez Crossing in Gaza.
- March 14, 2004: Ten people were killed and 16 wounded in a double suicide bombing in the area of the Ashdod Port. Hamas and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.
- January 14, 2004: A female suicide bomber killed four people and wounded 20 at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
- October 15, 2003: Three Americans were killed and one wounded at the Beit Hanoun junction in the Gaza Strip when a massive bomb demolished an armor-plated jeep in a convoy carrying U.S. diplomats and CIA personnel. Both the militant Islamic Jihad and Hamas movements denied responsibility for the attack.
- September 9, 2003: Hamas claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings, the first at an entrance to the Tzrifin army base near Rishon Lezion and the second at Café Hillel in the German colony neighborhood of Jerusalem, which killed a total of 15 people and wounded at least 80.
- August 19, 2003: Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem killing at least 18 people and wounding nearly 100.
- August 12, 2003: Suicide bombers killed two Israelis and wounded more than a dozen people in two attacks within a half hour of each other, one at a shopping mall in the Tel Aviv suburb of Rosh Ha’ayin and the other at the entrance of the West Bank town of Ariel. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the Rosh Ha’ayin bombing and Hamas claimed to have carried out the Ariel attack.
- June 20, 2003: An Israeli motorist was shot dead and three of his passengers were wounded when their car was fired upon by Palestinian terrorists near Ofra, north of Ramallah. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- June 11, 2003: Sixteen people were killed and more than 80 wounded when a suicide bomber blew up a Jerusalem city bus during the afternoon rush hour. The bomber was disguised as an ultra-orthodox Jew. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- May 19, 2003: A Palestinian suicide bomber on a bicycle attacked an Israeli checkpoint on the Gaza Strip, wounding three Israeli soldiers. Hamas claimed responsibility.
- May 18, 2003: Seven people were killed and more than 20 wounded when a suicide bomber blew up a Jerusalem city bus at the start of the Israeli work week. The bomber was disguised as an ultra-orthodox Jew. Soon after, a suicide bomber carrying explosives and dressed in the garb of an ultra-orthodox Jew was stopped at a roadblock. The Palestinian detonated his explosives, killing only himself. Hamas claimed responsibility in both attacks.
- May 17, 2003: A pregnant Israeli woman and her husband were killed when a suicide bomber detonated himself next to them in a public square in Hebron. Hamas claimed responsibility.
- April 30, 2003: Three people were killed and dozens wounded in a suicide bombing at a beachfront pub in Tel Aviv. The Fatah Tanzim and Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, carried out as a joint operation.
- March 7, 2003: Two Israelis were killed and five were wounded when armed terrorists infiltrated the community of Kiryat Arba and attacked during Shabbat. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 5, 2003: Sixteen people were killed and more than 30 wounded when a terrorist detonated a powerful bomb on a bus en route to Haifa University. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- January 5, 2003: Twenty two people were killed and about 120 wounded in a double suicide bombing near the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas all claimed responsibility for the attacks.
- November 21, 2002: Eleven people were killed and 47 injured when a Palestinian suicide bomber exploded on a bus filled with passengers, including schoolchildren, in the Kiryat Menahem neighborhood in Jerusalem. The bus was traveling toward the center of the city during the morning rush hour. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- October 27, 2002: Two Israeli police officers and a soldier were killed, and 20 bystanders were wounded in a suicide bombing at a gas station near the settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. The two officers and soldier were killed while trying to prevent the terrorist from detonating the bomb. Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.
- September 19, 2002: Six people were killed and 60 wounded when a terrorist detonated a bomb on one of Tel Aviv’s busiest streets, in a bus opposite the Great Synagogue. Many of the wounded were in critical or serious condition. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- August 4, 2002: Nine people were killed and about 50 wounded in a suicide bombing of an Egged bus at the Meron junction in northern Israel. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- July 3, 2002: Eight people were killed and 86 injured, 14 seriously, when a bomb went off at the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria on the Hebrew University Mt. Scopus campus during the busy lunchtime rush. Israeli authorities reported that the explosive device had been planted ahead of time, with the terrorist possibly detonating it by remote control. Five Americans were among the dead. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- June 18, 2002: Nineteen people were killed and more than 70 were injured, in a suicide bombing on a bus just outside of Jerusalem. The bus, which was completely destroyed, was traveling from Gilo to Jerusalem and had many students on board. In addition to the bus, at least two other vehicles were severely damaged in the attack. Hamas claimed responsibility.
- June 8, 2002: Three Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were killed, and five were injured when an armed terrorist inflitrated the community of Carmei Tzur, south of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsiblity for the attack.
- May 19, 2002: Three Israelis were killed and more than 50 injured in a suicide bombing at an open-air market in Netanya. A Palestinian disguised as an Israeli soldier carried out the attack. Both Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility. Two of the victims were identified as Yosef Haviv, 70 and Arkadi Wiselman, 40, both of Netanya. Wiselman, a chef at the Park Hotel, survived the Passover bombing on March 27.
- April 27, 2002: Three Palestinian gunmen disguised as Israeli Army soldiers cut through the perimeter fence of Adora, a settlement on the West Bank, and entered several homes, firing on residents in their bedrooms. Four people, including a 5-year-old girl, were killed in the attacks. Another seven were injured, including one seriously. Both Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility.
- March 31, 2002: Fourteen people were killed and more than 40 injured in a suicide bombing in Haifa, in the Matza gas station restaurant near a shopping mall. Several of the injured were in serious to critical condition. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 27, 2002: Twenty-two people were killed and 140 injured – 20 seriously – in a suicide bombing at the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of the Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 19, 2002: 1st Lt. Tal Zemach, 20, of Kibbutz Hulda, was killed and three soldiers were injured when Palestinian terrorists opened fire at the paratroop training compound in the Jordan Valley. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 9, 2002: Eleven people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded at in a crowded cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the Rehavia neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 7, 2002: Aharon Krogliak of Beit El, Tal Kurtzweil of Bnei Brak, Asher Marcus of Jerusalem, Eran Pikar of Jerusalem, and Ariel Zana of Jerusalem, all aged 18, were killed and 23 people were injured, four seriously, when a Palestinian gunman penetrated a highschool that combines religious studies and military training in the Gush Katif settlement of Atzmona late Thursday night. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- March 5, 2002: Palestinians fired two Kassam II rockets at the city of Sderot shortly before 18:00 PM on Tuesday. One of the rockets hit a residential building, moderately wounding a 16-month-old infant. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- February 10, 2002: A drive-by terrorist shooting at the entrance to the IDF Southern Command base in Be’er Sheva killed two female soldiers and injured four others. One of the Palestinian terrorists was killed at the scene; the second, wearing an explosives belt, fled in the direction of a nearby school when he was shot and killed by a soldier and police officer. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
- December 2, 2001: A suicide bombing on a No. 16 Egged bus in Haifa killed 15 people and injured about 40 people. Hamas claimed responsibility for the Haifa blast, while Hizbullah’s radio and television stations expressed support for the attacks.
- December 1, 2001: A double suicide bombing at the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem at 11:30 p.m. on a Saturday night killed 11 people, aged 12-21, and injured 188 people. A car bomb exploded 20 minutes later. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.”
This is the Hamas factsheet as published by the ADL in its website “Since its founding in 1987 in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Hamas – an Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement meaning “zeal” – has been committed to destroying the Jewish state and replacing it with an Islamic state in all of Palestine.
Hamas was created shortly before the December 1987 Intifada as a more militant, Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious, political and social movement founded in Egypt and dedicated to the gradual victory of Islam. Since the mid-1970s, the Brotherhood had been expanding its influence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip through its vast array of social services. Hamas advocacy of an immediate holy war to liberate Palestine rendered the Brotherhood’s policy of gradual Islamicization ineffectual.
Hamas preaches and engages in violence and terror in order to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Its virulent hatred of Jews and Judaism is deeply rooted in the anti-Semitic writings of Muslim Brotherhood theologians.
In August 1988, Hamas issued its Covenant laying down its ideological principles and goals. Replete with anti-Semitism, it echoes the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and charges Jews with an international conspiracy to gain control of the world. In Hamas’ worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As the Hamas Covenant proclaims, “The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust… It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it… Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it…”
Hamas is both a terrorist organization and a mass social, political and religious movement. The military branch is reportedly divided into three wings: an intelligence arm which gathers information about Palestinians suspected of collaboration, an arm which pursues those who have violated Islamic law and the Izzedine al-Qassam squads who are responsible for most of the terror attacks. The al-Qassam squads are comprised of a few dozen activists loosely organized into small, shadowy terror cells, at times operating independently of each other. Hamas’ military and political leaders are based throughout the West Bank and Gaza and the organization maintains offices and representatives in Teheran, Damascus and Amman. The connections and levels of coordination between the military and political branches are concealed.
The division of Hamas into military and political/social wings has led many observers to erroneously assume that the social wing of Hamas is completely separate from its military wing. However, funds raised for the social programs of Hamas free up other funds for the military wing and there is no open accounting system whereby the international community can ascertain whether or not the social wing finances the military wing. For instance, so-called humanitarian donations reward the families of Hamas suicide bombers.
Hamas’ military wing also utilizes the organization’s social wing for indoctrination and recruitment. The social, cultural, religious and educational institutions of Hamas are well-known venues for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred and serve as recruitment centers for Hamas suicide bombers. For example, a Hamas-sponsored soccer team in Hebron provided a ready supply of several Hamas suicide bombers. In early 2006, Hamas began operation of a television station based in Gaza, Al Aksa TV, which broadcasts primarily religious and children’s programming. Al Aksa TV – which Hamas says it hopes to soon broadcast via satellite to broaden its audience – is likely to become a key tool in propagating Hamas’ extremist message. Indeed, the host of the station’s children’s program told the New York Times that his show “will teach children the basics of militant Palestinian politics.”
Terrorism and Violence:
Hamas launched its campaign of violence in 1989, first against Israeli soldiers and suspected Palestinian collaborators, and then against Israeli civilians. In the wake of the Oslo agreement, Hamas leaders intensified their rhetoric and vowed to derail the peace process through violent attacks. Drive-by shootings, firebombings and stabbings increased. Suicide missions began in April 1994, when a Hamas suicide bomber rammed an explosives-laden car into a bus in Afula killing eight and wounding 50 others.
Since that time Hamas has claimed responsibility for hundreds of attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets. Israeli security sources have thwarted scores more. Following Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, Hamas carried out dozens of rocket attacks against civilian targets in southern Israel. According to the Israel Defense Forces, through suicide bombings and other violent attacks, Hamas has killed nearly 300 Israelis since September 2000, and wounded over 2,000.
While Hamas agreed to a ceasefire or “tahdia” on terrorist operations in March 2005, according to Israeli sources, Hamas continued to plan and perpetrate terrorist attacks, and helped provide support for attacks claimed by other terrorist organizations.
Through systematic religious and political indoctrination and social pressure, Hamas leaders recruit young Palestinian men for suicide missions and other attacks. Hamas has also recruited beyond the West Bank and Gaza. According to Israeli sources, Hamas has recruited and operated a number of Israeli Arab terror cells. In June 2003, Israel indicted five senior officials of the Israeli Arab Islamic Movement, including movement leader Sheikh Ra’ad Salah, on various terrorism-related charges including membership in Hamas and raising funds abroad for Hamas agencies in the West Bank and Gaza. According to Israeli sources, two British Muslim suicide bombers who blew up a pub in Tel Aviv in April 2003 were Hamas recruits dispatched by the Hamas military command in Gaza.
Hamas enjoys strong financial backing from Iran (an estimated $20 – $30 million), private benefactors and Muslim charities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Palestinian expatriates across the globe and American donors. Its budget has been estimated at $70 million and 85 percent of it reportedly comes from abroad; the remaining 15 percent is raised among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. A number of Americans and U.S.-based charities have been implicated in funneling money to Hamas. It is estimated that Saudi Arabia continues to channel between $12 – $14 million to Hamas annually. At a June 2003 press conference, Adel al-Jubeir, a senior adviser to the Saudi Crown Prince, did acknowledge that many Palestinian institutions funded by the Saudis may be run or managed by the political wing of Hamas.
Syria remains a key center for Hamas operations, and the Assad regime provides support and protection to key Hamas leadership based in Damascus.
Hamas and Palestinian Politics:
Hamas had tremendous success in the January 25, 2006 parliamentary elections, routing Fatah, and winning 74 seats in the 132-seat legislature, with Fatah earning a disappointing 45 seats. Hamas will thus form the next Palestinian Authority government, with Mahmoud Abbas remaining as Palestinian Authority President.
Although the “Oslo II” agreement signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in September 1995, outlining the modalities of Palestinian elections, bars candidates who “commit or advocate racism; or pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or non-democratic means,” President Abbas did not prevent Hamas’ participation in the political process.
Hamas began large-scale participation in the Palestinian political scene in 2005, and they did extremely well in the series of municipal elections held throughout the year, gaining more than a third of municipal council seats. As a result of the fourth round of Palestinian municipal elections held in December 2005, over one million Palestinians live in municipalities governed by Hamas (while only 700,000 live in municipalities governed by Fatah).
Hamas candidates appeal to Palestinian voters as the alternative to the perceived corruption, inaction and weakness of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority leadership. Candidates promised improved socio-economic conditions for Palestinian families, and greater social services. They also pledged an end to the “Israeli occupation,” the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of all Palestinian refugees.
Through the 2006 election campaign, Hamas candidates and leadership did not disavow their commitment to an “armed struggle” against Israel, their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and the precepts of the Hamas Charter. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar declared on Palestinian TV, “We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land. . . . We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up.” At the same time, a number of Hamas candidates did make pragmatic statements, indicating that they might deal with Israelis in certain situations, or via a third party.
The entry of Hamas into Palestinian politics has been somewhat controversial. Some Hamas ideologues argue that involvement with the Palestinian Authority will lead to comprising the party’s goals, and the legitimization of the Palestinian Authority’s dealings with the State of Israel. Indeed, for these reasons Hamas did not participate in the last Palestinian elections in 1996.”
On May 13, 2011 the ADL denounced the anti-Semitism in the Hamas charter ”
Despite the likelihood that Hamas will win the municipal elections in the West Bank, and Hamas opposition to the two State solution, Obama seems to be determined to violate the Oslo Accords and approve a Palestinian UNSC resolution.
The Knesset only approved Oslo because Clinton supported the signature of the agreements, Clinton worked hard to make it happen and witnessed the signature of Oslo in the White House. According to the agreed Oslo Accords, the borders should be agreed through direct negotiations. The Knesset would not have approved Oslo if they had known a future US President would betray the accords and approve a UNSC against them. Obama’s UNSC resolution violates Oslo. Settlement freeze was not a part of the agreement, the settlements occupy 1.7% of the West Bank but Kerry lied that “there’s been a massive increase in settlements”. Obama is using the immense power of the White House to help Abbas violate Oslo, by inventing the myth of “massive settlement construction”, Obama is trying to create a false sense of urgency to justify a UNSC resolution.
And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the “Green Line,” prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”
…Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent solution negotiations.”
I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.
…The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands…
Mr. Speaker Members of Knesset,
The agreement, with all its articles lies before you. There are no secret appendices or letters. This is the agreement that dozens, perhaps hundreds, of civil servants, and IDF officers led by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres worked on, and to all of them I say — thank you from the bottom of my heart…”
The US is a guarantor of the Oslo Accords but instead of acting as a guarantor, Obama is helping Abbas violate Oslo. Abbas would not be able to violate Oslo without Obama’s help in the UNSC. Obama is helping Abbas by lying about “massive settlement construction” to create an excuse to bury the Oslo agreements and abandon Israel in the UNSC. The settlements occupy only 1.7% of the West Bank but Kerry lied that “there’s been a massive increase in settlements”. By inventing the myth of “massive settlement construction”, Obama is trying to create a false sense of urgency to justify a UNSC resolution.
The Palestinians could have had a State in over 93% of the West Bank if they had accepted Olmert’s offer in 2008, instead they are in a rush to submit a UNSC resolution before the end of Obama’s term because they know Obama will not veto it and the old city of Jerusalem (including Temple Mount) will be placed in the Palestinian side of the border.
France’s conference, endorsed by Kerry, aims to replace Oslo with a time-limited framework leading to a UNSC resolution. The conference’s goals are to establish a timetable for the negotiations and to gather international legitimacy for the Arab Peace Initiative which draws Israel’s borders according to the 67 lines.
France threatened that if the conference fails, they will support a Palestinian UNSC resolution including a time-line for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in violation to the Oslo Accords, the French would not be doing this if they were not sure Obama will abandon Israel in the UNSC.
On June 19, 2016 David Israel wrote in the Jewish Press that Herzog is campaigning for the Paris Conference “MK Herzog’s office released a statement saying, “…I am working now to prevent a situation where the abandoning of a regional conference on the part of the extreme right-wing government won’t bring on us the next war…”
Despite the fact that it was the Israeli left that pushed for signing the Oslo Accords, Herzog is campaigning for the Paris Conference which violate the Oslo Accords. The Knesset must forbid any Israeli Citizen from participating in international conferences that violate the Oslo Accords. Herzog’s participation in the Paris Conference would undermine the policy of Netanyahu’s democratically elected government.
On May 6, 2016 the Times of Israel reported that “A one-day Israeli-Palestinian peace summit in Paris — to which the Israelis and Palestinians were not invited — concluded Friday with a warning that violence and settlement activity are imperiling a two-state solution, and a call for an international conference on the issue before the end of the year.
“We must act, urgently, to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said after the meeting….He warned that a solution which would see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side was “getting further away each day.”
…In their closing communique, the more than two dozen participating nations…expressed alarm that “actions on the ground, in particular continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, are dangerously imperiling the prospects for a two-state solution.”…Calling for an end to the “Israeli occupation that begin in 1967…”
EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini stressed that… “The policy of settlement expansion and demolitions, violence, and incitement tells us very clearly that the perspective that Oslo opened up is seriously at risk of fading away,” she told reporters.
The foreign ministers of the United States, European nations, and several Arab states were among those attending the meeting. No Israeli or Palestinian officials were invited.
…Ahead of the summit, an internal document sent by the French Foreign Ministry to participating nations had anticipated that “ministers will agree on the principle that a clear timetable will need to be established for the negotiations when they restart….”
On February 2, 2016 Ambassador Alan Baker wrote in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs “On January 28, 2016, France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, in a statement issued after meeting with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, voiced a somewhat curious and ominous warning and threat, directed solely against Israel: If imminent efforts being organized by France to end the deadlock in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians end without result, France intends to “live up to our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and recognize a Palestinian state.”1
This curious, unprecedented, biased, and far from friendly ultimatum raises some pertinent legal and diplomatic questions regarding France’s capacity and standing, both in the context of the Israel-Arab peace process, as well as regarding France’s “responsibilities” as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
France, as a leading member of the EU, is party to the EU’s signature as witness to the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.2 This agreement constitutes the internationally acknowledged backbone of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The commitments set down in this agreement, to negotiate the permanent status of the territories as well as other central issues such as Jerusalem, borders, settlements and refugees, are solemn Palestinian and Israeli obligations which France, together with its EU partners, as well as the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway are obligated to honor after placing their signatures on the agreement as witnesses.
By the same token, the UN General Assembly in its Resolution A/50/21 of December 4, 1995, supported by France, expressed its full support for the Oslo Accords and the peace negotiation process.3
In its capacity both as a signed witness to the agreement, as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is incumbent on France, which voted in favor of the UN resolution endorsing the agreement and the negotiation process, not to attempt to undermine the same agreement and process, nor to prejudge issues that are still open and to be negotiated.
In threatening to unilaterally and arbitrarily recognize a Palestinian state, France is clearly prejudging the issue of the permanent status of the territory, which, as set out in the agreement itself, is a negotiating issue yet to be resolved. In this context, France and its European colleagues cannot and should not act to undermine the Palestinian obligation set out in the Final Clauses of the agreement, according to which no step will be taken to “change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”4
Thus, in acting to unilaterally organize an “international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the solution of two states,” France is attempting both to bypass and undermine a negotiating process called for by the UN in several resolutions since 1967, all supported and endorsed by France.
France is also undermining the various reciprocal commitments between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, including a letter from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin dated September 9, 1993, in which Arafat declared that “all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”5
As such, by engaging in a parallel, un-agreed process with the declared aim of imposing upon one side – Israel – the outcome of an international conference, France is, in fact, acting ultra vires all accepted norms and principles of conflict-resolution. Since all the agreed issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including borders between them, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, security and cooperation, as well as the permanent status of the territory, require reciprocal negotiation, France cannot deceive itself and the international community into believing that these issues can be imposed arbitrarily by any conference or international or regional organization.
In imposing its ultimatum and threat to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state should France’s efforts to “make happen the solution of two states” fail, France is, in effect, granting the Palestinian side the prerogative not to engage in any bona fide negotiations with Israel, knowing that, in any event, France will unilaterally grant the Palestinians what they are demanding.
As such, this statement by France’s foreign minister would appear to be the very antithesis of what is to be expected of a respected and responsible permanent member of the Security Council which presumes to “live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council.”
In view of these considerations, France is urged to reconsider this imprudent, irresponsible and damaging position.
See more at: http://jcpa.org/frances-ultimatum-to-israel-legally-flawed-and-politically-imprudent/#sthash.N4ackg32.dpuf
On September 1999, Daniel Pipes revealed that shortly after signing the Oslo Accords, Arafat declared that he would betray them: “On 10 May 1994, Yasir Arafat gave what he thought was an off-the-record talk at a mosque while visiting Johannesburg, South Africa. But a South African journalist, Bruce Whitfield of 702 Talk Radio, found a way secretly to record his (English-language) remarks. The moment was an optimistic one for the Arab-Israeli peace process, Arafat having just six days earlier returned triumphantly to Gaza; it was widely thought that the conflict was winding down. In this context, Arafat’s bellicose talk in Johannesburg about a “jihad to liberate Jerusalem,” had a major impact on Israelis, beginning a process of disillusionment that has hardly abated in the intervening years.
No less damaging than his comments about Jerusalem was Arafat’s cryptic allusion about his agreement with Israel. Criticized by Arabs and Muslims for having made concessions to Israel, he defended his actions by comparing them to those of the Prophet Muhammad in a similar circumstance:
“I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca.”
Arafat further drew out the comparison, noting that although Muhammad had been criticized for this diplomacy by one of his leading companions (and a future caliph), Umar ibn al-Khattab…
“…the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit,we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem.”
In the five years since he first alluded to Muhammad and the Quraysh, Arafat has frequently mentioned this as a model for his own diplomacy.
…And Arafat – what does the reference to Hudaybiya suggest about his future actions? It appears that he made the comparison with the Prophet Muhammad to make several points to a Muslim audience about his own actions:
-He made unpopular concessions that will turn out well in the end.
-He will achieve his goal – though what that goal is remains ambiguous: it might be just the city of Jerusalem (in parallel to the city of Mecca) or the whole of Israel (in parallel to the whole Quraysh dominion).
-He intends, at the right moment, to exploit a minor transgression to attack his enemy.
The third point is the operational one, permitting Arafat to imply not that he will break his agreements with Israel but will, when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel.
It bears noting how easily Arafat or a future Palestinian leader will find this to do-legally. Arafat has already signed five complex agreements with Israel that include hundreds of pages of mind-numbing detail. The Oslo II agreement of 28 September 1995, for example, runs 314 pages without attachments and includes a myriad of specifics. To take just one clause: Israeli authorities have obligated themselves to help the Palestinian Authority maintain a statistical system by transferring the “estimation procedures, forms of questionnaires, manuals, coding manuals, procedures for and results of quality control measures and analysis of surveys.” The Hudaybiya precedent implies that Arafat can choose any lapse or transgression (say, not receiving the results of quality control measures) and turn this into a casus belli for an all-out attack on the Jewish state.”
Obama is helping Abbas implement Arafat’s plan to violate Oslo. Using the excuse of settlement construction the US has threatened to ignore the Oslo accords and impose a solution through the UNSC. The US is a guarantor of the Oslo accords yet Obama has threatened to abandon the Oslo accords and support a Palestinian UNSC resolution. Obama blames Israel for the failure of negotiations using the excuse of settlement construction yet Abbas confession that he refused Olmert’s peace offer in 2008 proves that settlements are not the issue. On November 22, the Tower Magazine reported that “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly confirmed for the first time that he turned down a peace offer in 2008 that would have provided for an independent Palestinian state containing all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a tunnel connecting the two areas.
Abbas made his comments in an interview on Israel’s Channel 10, which has been broadcasting a three-part series on the peace talks of 2000 and 2008. According to both Abbas and Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister in 2008, Olmert presented Abbas in September of that year with a map that delineated the borders of the future State of Palestine. Abbas said that he “rejected it out of hand” because he claimed not to be an expert on maps, and because Olmert’s domestic scandals meant that he would shortly leave office (Olmert was later convicted of corruption). While both Olmert and other Palestinian leaders have previously said that Abbas turned down a peace proposal, this is the first time that the Palestinian Authority president has admitted as such.
At 24:05 of the video, Channel 10 reporter Raviv Drucker asked Abbas: “In the map that Olmert presented you, Israel would annex 6.3 percent [of the West Bank] and compensate the Palestinians with 5.8 percent [taken from pre-1967 Israel]. What did you propose in return?”
“I did not agree,” Abbas replied. “I rejected it out of hand.”
At 26:53 of the video, Drucker pressed again:
Drucker: Why, really, did you not accept Olmert’s offer?
Abbas: He [Olmert] said to me, “Here’s a map. See it? That’s all.” I respected his decision not to give me the map. But how can we sign something that hasn’t been given us, that hasn’t been discussed?
The existence of the peace offer was first reported by The Tower’s Avi Issacharoff in 2013, when Olmert told him that he presented Abbas with a map proposal during talks at the Prime Minister’s Residence. Shortly after Olmert’s presentation, Abbas redrew that version of the map from memory, in order to make sure that he and Olmert were on the same page. Issacharoff acquired a photograph of that map…
As Issacharoff wrote:
Abbas silenced those present so that he could concentrate. He wanted to sketch out Olmert’s map from memory. The Israeli Prime Minister had told him that as long as Abu Mazen did not sign his initials to the map and endorse it, Olmert would not hand over a copy. Abu Mazen took a piece of letterhead of the Presidential Office and drew on it the borders of the Palestinian state as he remembered them.
Abbas marked the settlement blocks that Israel would retain: The Ariel bloc, the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adumim bloc (including E1), and Gush Etzion. A total of 6.3% of the West Bank. Then Abbas also drew the territories that Israel proposed to offer in their place: In the area of Afula-Tirat Zvi, in the Lachish area, the area close to Har Adar, and in the Judean desert and the Gaza envelope. A total of 5.8% of the West Bank. Abu Mazen wrote on the left side of the letterhead the numbers as he incorrectly remembered them (6.8% and 5.5%), and on the back he wrote the rest of the details of the proposal: Safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank via a tunnel, the pentilateral committee to administer the Holy Basin, the removal of the Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the absorption of 5,000 Palestinian refugees, 1,000 each year over five years, inside the Green Line.
Abbas’ hand-drawn map, sketched on the stationery of the Palestinian Office of the President and obtained by TheTower.org in the course of this investigative report about the clandestine negotiation between Olmert and Abbas, was published here yesterday exclusively. The two men met 36 times, mostly in Jerusalem and once in Jericho, and arrived at a formula that was to be the basis for a lasting agreement between the two parties. But in the end, peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians were not signed, despite the far-reaching proposal made by Olmert. As an official matter, the Palestinian Authority has not responded.
The next day, Abbas called off talks, saying that he had to attend a meeting in Jordan.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat had a similar recollection when interviewed by Al Jazeera in 2009:
Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: “We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.” Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: “I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign.
Abbas’ comments on Channel 10 were first picked up in English by veteran reporter Mark Lavie.
On November 2011 the investigativeproject.org reported that “In her new memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirms that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas rejected generous territorial concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.
When she traveled to Jerusalem in May 2008, Olmert invited Rice to dinner to outline his plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Rice recounts that she was shocked by how far the Israeli leader was willing to go. Olmert was prepared to give up nearly the entire West Bank and to divide Jerusalem with the Arab world.
Olmert offered to make Jerusalem the capital of two states – Israel in the western part and a Palestinian capital in the east. The Old City of Jerusalem would be administered by a committee made up of so-called wise people including Palestinians, Jordanians, Saudis, Americans and Israelis.
“They will oversee the city, but not in a political role,” Olmert told Rice. And he offered another concession – offering to allow 5,000 Palestinian refugees to settle in Israel.
Rice was incredulous. “Am I really hearing this? I wondered. Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites?”
The following day, Rice brought Olmert’s proposal to Abbas in Ramallah. He rejected it, telling Rice the PA could not agree to a deal that prevented nearly 4 million Palestinians from being able to “go home” (i.e., to return to their ancestors’ former homes in pre-Six Day War Israel).
On Sep. 16, 2008, Olmert presented Abbas with a similar plan for a two-state solution. The Palestinians said no, effectively killing the Olmert plan.
More detail on the breakdown of the talks comes from the Palestine Papers – documents about a decade of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations that were stolen from PA negotiator Saeb Erakat’s office, leaked to al-Jazeerah and posted on the media outlet’s website in January.
As the Jerusalem Post noted on Tuesday, these documents show that PA negotiators talked out of both sides of their mouths – speaking publicly about compromise with Israel on Palestinian refugees while privately describing the “right of return” as an individual right that must be extended to 7 million Palestinians – a formula most Israelis regard as a demographic blueprint for the destruction of their country.
The documents also show that Washington was apparently unaware that, in preparation for the September 16 meeting, the PA was trying to come up with plans to avoid reaching a binding agreement with Israel and to avoid blame for failing reach a final-status agreement with the Jewish state.”
Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer because it would have required him to give up on the “right of return” for most Palestinians. Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”
…What the Palestinians mean by “right of return” according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval.
According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:
“The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.
The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.
The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.
Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.
Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.”
In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of refugees and their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”
Even though it was Abbas who rejected Olmert’s peace-offer in 2008, Obama and Kerry blame Israeli settlement construction for the collapse of talks and increase of violence. On October 16 Elliot Abrams wrote in the Council on Foreign Relations website that “Secretary of State Kerry made an unhelpful, mistaken, ill-informed comment about the current wave of Palestinian violence yesterday when speaking at Harvard.
Here is the comment Kerry made:
“So here’s the deal. What’s happening is that unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody. And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”
Kerry does not know what he is talking about. There has simply not been “a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years.” There has been a steady growth in settlement population, though the bulk of that growth is in the major blocs–such as Ma’ale Adumim–that Israel will clearly retain in any final agreement. Kerry’s imprecision is another problem. Does he mean there has been a massive increase in the number of settlements? That’s flatly false. Does he mean a massive increase in settlement size, as existing settlements expand physically? That’s also flatly false. The so-called “peace map” or “Google Earth map” of the West Bank has changed very little.
The frequent Palestinian claim that Israel is “gobbling up” the West Bank so that “peace will be impossible” is what Kerry is here repeating when he says “a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody.” It’s a false claim and he should know it. If that is not what Kerry meant, he should be far more careful when he speaks about such an explosive topic–and at such an explosive moment.
Moreover, his claim is plain silly. The slow but steady growth in population in settlements is a completely unpersuasive explanation for the sudden outbreak of violence. That outburst of violence and terror appears linked to lies about Israel changing the status quo at the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif. But whatever its explanation, the false linkage to settlements is of a piece with the Obama administration’s continuing obsession with that subject–despite all the evidence. It’s remarkable that the Secretary of State, who has spent so much time with Israelis and Palestinians and has visited Jerusalem repeatedly, has not bothered to learn the basic facts. He is instead parroting Palestinian propaganda. In fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been under pressure and criticism from settler groups because he has restrained settlement population growth beyond the security barrier. To suffer those political attacks and then hear criticism from the secretary of state about a “massive increase in settlements” helps explain the lack of confidence Israeli officials feel in the Obama administration.
Mr. Kerry is doing something else here that is even worse: blaming the victims. The State Department has of course condemned acts of terror, but here in a question and answer period we get beyond official statements and see what Kerry really appears to think. He seems to believe that the real culprits, when Palestinians stab Israelis to death, are people who build a new housing unit in a settlement.
The Kerry remarks at Harvard were morally obtuse and factually wrong.”
Kerry lies when he says that settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. Settlements occupy now about 1.7% of the West Bank and during Olmert’s term they occupied about 1.6%, new homes were built inside existing settlement land, no new land was taken, there was virtually no expansion outside previous areas. As blogger Elder of Zion wrote “ …how the ~1.7% of settlement land today makes peace so much harder than ~1.6% 20 years ago?”
On November 10 blogger Elder of Zion wrote “At Binyamin Netanyahu’s appearance at the Center for American Progress, he said that the settlements were not an obstacle to peace.
He answered that “There have been no new settlements built in the past 20 years.The additions have been in existing communities. The map has not materially changed.”
I’m not sure if that is 100% true; I know of three formerly illegal outposts that became legal, and I cannot imagine that there haven’t been more illegal outposts in 20 years that have escaped being demolished. But the larger point is true – there has been essentially no new settlements, as opposed to how they are characterized. and Netanyahu said this:
“By the way, Google this. Because this is just repeated, ad nauseum, so it assumes the cachet of self-evident truth, that we’re ‘gobbling up land’ and so on. We’re not gobbling up land….I mean the total amount of built up land is just a few percent. And the addition, if you look at it over time, it’s got to be a fraction – maybe one tenth of one percent? Maybe I’m off, maybe it’s 3/10ths of one percent. That’s the land that’s being “gobbled up.” That’s a factual question. That is not something that should be debated. And yet it’s become an axiom, that we are gobbling up land. We’re not.”
…(In response to Netanyahu’s statement, Peace Now wrote) “The “one percent argument” is a classic example of how supporters of the status-quo use a fraction of the truth to misrepresent the truth on the ground in the West Bank. Yes, the actual built-up area of West Bank settlements takes up only a little more than 1% of the West Bank. But the settlements’ built-up area is just the tip of the settlements iceberg. The impact of the settlements goes far beyond this 1%.
Almost 10% of the West Bank is included in the “municipal area,” or the jurisdictional borders of the settlements. These borders are so large that they allow settlements to expand many times over onto land that is completely off-limits to Palestinians.
In addition, almost 34% of the West Bank has been placed under the jurisdiction of the settlements’ “Regional Councils.” That is, more than an additional 1/3 of the West Bank has been placed under the control of the settlers, off-limits to Palestinians.
In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.”
Elder of Zion responded “Let’s say that this is 100% true. Then this means that Peace Now agrees that there has been no fundamental change in the West Bank map since the PLO rejected Israeli peace offers of 93%-95% of the land in 2001 and 2008!
Somehow, the 40% Israel controls didn’t stop Barak and Olmert from offering nearly the entire West Bank for a Palestinian state. If they could offer it, so could the current Israeli government. So the 40% figure is a red herring, meant to obscure the fact that the intransigent party is the Palestinian side.
…Peace Now and J-Street know this. If you read their literature you can see that they try very hard to distract their readers from these facts by mentioning things that aren’t relevant. Their central claim to raise cash, that Israel – and especially the reviled Likud government of Netanyahu – is gobbling up land is shown to be a lie.
Yet this Peace Now and J-Street lie of Israel “gobbling up land” is repeated without any shame by the White House, by the New York Times, and by many other sources who don’t even bother to read Peace Now reports with a critical eye. Because their own documentation proves their public lies!”
Arutz 7 reported that “US Secretary of State John Kerry asserted Wednesday that the escalating wave of Arab terror in Israel showcases what would be in store if the Palestinian Arabs were not to achieve statehood.
During a speech in Washington, Kerry emphasized the United States’ commitment to advancing the two-state solution, which he called “the only viable alternative.”
…Stressing that unrest and violence have hurt both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, Kerry contended “the current situation is simply not sustainable.”…
Kerry calls the situation “not sustainable” yet Abbas said that “…the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
On May 29, 2009 CAMERA reported that “Washington Post Deputy Editorial Editor Jackson Diehl recounts his recent conversation with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in today’s issue of the newspaper.
It seems that yet again Israel offered Palestinians a state on virtually the entire West Bank, and yet again a Palestinian leader — this time the one widely described as moderate — rejected the offer.
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.
Diehl also quotes Abbas as rejecting, again, the notion that he should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, and as saying that the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
In 2013 Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting,” the secretary of state said. “I think we have some period of time – a year to year-and-a-half to two years, or it’s over.”
He added: “Everybody I talk to in the region and all of the supporters globally who care … want us to move forward on a peace effort. They’re all worried about the timing here. So there’s an urgency to this, in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the president’s instructions, to honour that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.”
Although the conflict exists since 1948, Kerry claims there is an “urgency” to solve it in a short two year window because Obama’s term in office is coming to an end. On March 2015 Newsmax reported that “The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported. The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times.”
Obama is in a rush to pass a UNSC resolution imposing a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank before his time in office ends. He knows that the next administration will not be willing to concede this to the Palestinians without taking into consideration Israel’s security needs.
Obama has to pass this UNSC urgently before his term comes to an end to tie the future US President’s hands. Future administrations will have no choice but to obey to Obama’s UNSC resolution.
To justify the UNSC resolution, Obama needs to create a sense of urgency. Abbas is escalating the violence through stabbing attacks to create the sense of urgency that Obama needs. Abbas wants to provoke an Israeli reaction which Obama can use as an excuse to justify the anti-Israel UNSC resolution.
The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”
Those who advocate for a solution in the UNSC cannot ignore that what happened in Gaza can also happen in the West Bank. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took power and started missile attack against Israel. If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank Hamas will attack Israel with missiles from the West Bank as it does from Gaza.
John Kerry is dishonest in not acknowledging that after Gaza the situation has changed and imposing a solution in the UNSC will make the situation much worse, it will make life in Israel impossible and lead to war. Only a person that does not care for the safety of Israel’s citizens would advocate for this. For Kerry it doesn’t matter this UNSC resolution will make the conflict worse and lead to war, he wants to impose it at all costs.
Abbas admitted that he rejected Olmert’s peace offer in 2008 (and continues to reject the two state solution now) yet Obama and Kerry falsely blame Israeli settlement expansion for the collapse in peace negotiations and the increase in Palestinian violence.
Only the US Congress can prevent Obama and Kerry from imposing an anti-Israel UNSC resolution that will threaten Israel’s existence. There are 57 Muslim States (see members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation) but only one Jewish State smaller than New Jersey. This UNSC resolution will lead to the destruction of the only small Jewish State.
The Congress can prevent this UNSC resolution by refuting Obama and Kerry’s false claims that Israel is to blame for the collapse of negotiations, condemning Abbas for rejecting Olmert’s peace-offer in 2008 and issuing a statement supporting the Oslo accords. Clinton worked hard to encourage the parts to sign the Oslo Accords. Clinton witnessed the signature of the accords in the White House. The Knesset approved the accords because they trusted Clinton’s support for the agreement, they would not have approved Oslo if Clinton was against it. The Congress must forbid Obama to impose a UNSC resolution that violates its terms.
Ezequiel Doiny is a writer residing in New Jersey. His work has been published in Gatestone Institute, the Jewish Press and Arutz 7