11 Comments

It really doesn’t matter whether he said East or not. As usually defined, “(Arab) East Jerusalem” is a deceptive term; it always includes the entire Old City. The counterpart “West Jerusalem” is merely the area to the west of the Old City held by Israel before 1967.

So whether he said East or not, he called for the annexation of the Western Wall and Temple Mount to Palestine.

Today Gaza, tomorrow the West Bank and (East) Jerusalem

For some reason this statement seems very familiar. Didn’t some politician make a similar statement about 70 years ago?

How can anyone determine the veracity of an utterance by a known liar as quoted by known liars?

Who cares what the capo of a criminal enterprise says, anyway? I just hope he’s hangin’ with Hamas capos when Israel sends them the next “This Hellfire’s for You” Valentine.

“he called for the annexation”

Don’t know how that fits as annexation. Jordan should reannex the West Bank, or most of it, Egypt Gaza. Brush aside the flaky issue of Palestinian national identity – the locals will have countries backing them (as before) with strategic depth, a separate state would be at Israel’s whims, so those fears, legitimate or not, shrink. Those on the West Bank will gain from the US-Jordan free trade treaty. Allow no major military deployments in the territories, same deal Israel and Egypt have on the Sinai. Israel will be more secure from terrorism with legitimate states controlling the area. Want to control violent Islamists in Gaza? Egypt knows that score.

Of course Egypt and Jordan might be of the same mind with the Israelis – would like the land, but not the people. But those people might prefer the security of stable states over the unsure fortunes of rule by the Fatah or Hamas.

Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas finished the sentence for Abbas, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other Israeli cities in his rant.

So, how long before Zahar joines Rantisi and Yassin?

exmaple: A nice idea, except that you’d never get the Egyptians *or* the Jordanians to play along. (I have serious doubts as to whether the Palestinians would play along… they’ve gotten quite accustomed to playing the victim card.)

Please remember that Jordan did annex the West Bank, back in 1950. (The annexation was recognized by all of two countries, worldwide — Britain and Pakistan.) In the end, Jordan formally renounced all claims to the West Bank, back in the 1980s I believe. (I don’t blame them, what with the grief Arafat gave them in 1970.)

And Egypt has never had any particular interest in the Gaza Strip. They didn’t do anything with it in the eighteen years it was under their control, 1949 – 1967. Israel formally offered the Strip to Egypt when the Sinai Peninsula was handed over in 1981; the Egyptians wanted no part of it.

Frankly, if the Palestinians truly wanted stable rule, they should have stayed with the Israeli military administration, which they had from 1967 until 1993 or so. It’s a heck of a lot better than what they’d get from either Egypt or Jordan, neither of whom have ever done much of anything for them. In fact, if you factor in the infrastructure Israel built for the Palestinians — roads, schools, universities, electrical grids, modern sewage, and so on — you could make a good case to say that no one has a better record with the Palestinian people than Israel does. (Pretty sad, isn’t it?)

respectfully,

Daniel in Brookline

Also on the subject of “what the Palestinians say”, by the way, please do check out SecondDraft.org. It’s an illuminating — and disturbing — look at just how thoroughly the Palestinians have manipulated the media to tell their story, their way… even when there’s not a scrap of truth to it at all.

respectfully,

Daniel in Brookline

If “credibility” were a balance sheet item, then it would represent a very high proportion of the asset base for a news organization. Whar are the responsible corporate executives thinking when they allow this asset to be eroded? Will they be able to point to any offsetting business benefit? Higher market share in the moonbat segment, maybe? But don’t they already have this?

Unfortunately Abbas’ words have little meaning. The de facto force in Palestinian politics is Hamas and ultimately their desires will prevail.

The PA possesses no means to control the current unrest.

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=322

In their effort to reach political objectives, Hamas is sacrificing the good of the Palestinian people.

Daniel in Brookline — do you have a reference to cite on your claim that Israel offered Gaza to Egypt in 1981? I believe that is false — wouldn’t Begin have been strongly opposed?

Also, saying “there’s not a scrap of truth to [the Palestinian's 'story']” is unreasonable. We’ve been through narratives of the birth of Israel here before, and I’m not gonna do it again. Suffice to say, when facts about Arab displacement from western Palestine are laid out, and strawmen like the SUBSEQUENT removal of Jews from Arab nations are set aside, almost every supporter of the Israeli position that I’ve debated changes their tune, from “those Palestinian Arabs were nazis” to “well, tough shit happens to everyone.”

Finally, if the 1967-1994 Israeli military administration that you praised was so wonderful, why did it lead to the first intifada, and why have West Bank and Gaza Palestinian not joined their Israeli Arab brethren in preferring to live under continued Israeli sovereignty?

I say this as someone who is a strong supporter of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, but who nevertheless is appalled and taken aback by the radical Islamization of much of Palestinian society — exemplified by the report in this week’s New Republic of a massacre of an Islamic woman and the family of a Christian man who made the mistake of becoming romantically involved.

Regarding the Old City, Israeli fears of being denied access to the Western Wall are legitimate. And Arab fears of Jewish or Christian zionist extremists trying to destroy the Dome are also legitimate. I’m not sure how to work things out, but both these points should be acknowledged by all parties.

Does anyone doubt Eason Jordan only admitted that because he feared some Iraqi official or document would eventially spill the beans? If he could have been sure that it would never come out on its own, he never would have said anything.