Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel (UPDATED)

 

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE BREAKING

This is the second part in my Trilogy. The first part was 'Israel Cannot Succeed By Empowering Terrorists' and the third is 'The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century' The World's Most Audacious Marketing Coup'

Just for the record, Hamas denies recognising Israel: "We do not recognize Israel". Oh really?

Hamas - whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state - rejected any suggestion the deal to end its damaging power struggle with rival Fatah could imply it now accepts Israel's existence.

WaPo doesn't tell you anything about the denial but spins it the usual way: "The violence overshadowed an agreement earlier in the day by leaders of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that controls the Palestinian government, on a unified political agenda advocated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to ease the economic sanctions against the government." AP doesn't mention Hamas' renewed pledge to stick to its genocidal goals, but takes aim at, oh well, who knew... 'Israelis bomb camp, cut power and water'. BBC surprises; well not quite. 'Hamas resists Israel recognition' is their title; resist says it all, doesn't it. It's subtle. Let's see, resist implies: Hamas 'withstands' the pressure to abandon its genocidal goals; it implies, 'struggle against' Israel's draconian demands; Hamas 'stands up against' the schoolyard bully... NYT calls "such an accord [...] a significant change" and goes to some lengths to diffuse the denial... but makes sure you are left with the impression that Israel rejects this hailed accord unjustly and, consistent with doctrine, arrogantly....

There are so many aspects to this which ought to drive even the most dispassionate observer stark raving mad with fury and frustration.

First off, what's the point of any 'deal' if it doesn't end the 'financial siege', as they like to call it - and hopefully, we won't cave in any time soon to the demands that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept peace accords. Surely we recognize, that the chief reason for the recent unrests are ultimately financial; if salaries had been paid and enough money were on hand to continue the bribes as well as weapons and ammunition procurement program for all, there wouldn't have been the kind of violent clashes.

Secondly, any reminder of the Hamas Charter coupled with all those bold-faced assurances to 'faithfully' uphold it, serves as an unfailing litmus test to separate the sane from the insane: The sane refuse to engage in any further debate about anything until this quintessential manifestation of "crime against humanity", if ever there was in print, has been unequivovally renounced and replaced with a Charter compatible with humanity. The insane talk about everything else whilst steadfastly refusing to address the Charter altogether.

Thirdly, how much further can our pitiful decent to this entirely self-induced mass folly go?

Power struggle
   
During weeks of wrangling in the power struggle, Abbas tried to get Hamas to accept a document penned by Palestinians in Israeli jails which implicitly recognizes Israel. [sure, it would be unheard off to recognize a sovereign nation 'explicitly, would it]

Hamas accepted it only after amendments it insisted would allow it to stick to its "agenda of resistance" to Israel. [meaning: "kill every Jew hiding behind every rock as it states in the Charter"]

"The document included a clear clause referring to the non-recognition of the legitimacy of the Occupation," said Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman, using the group's term for Israel. [again, Isreal has its own 'term'... each and every one of these statements should cause for the opinion pages of the NYT, LAT and WaPo to be filled with words of utter condemnation and disgust... in a sane world that is...]

Officials close to the negotiations said Abbas of Fatah, and Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas, drafted a platform accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas captured by Israel in a 1967 war. Such a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be in line with Fatah's recognition of Israel.

Hamas clarification
   
But Hamas legislator [a legislator no less - no fanatic, just a legislator] Salah al-Bardaweel said: "We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 - but we did not say we accept two states."
   
A senior aide to Abbas said the agreement clearly meant Hamas accepted Israel. Yasser Abed Rabbo accused Hamas of "playing with words in order to save face". [playing... the dears - having fun, have they... Ah, well, I wonder in front of whom they'll have to save face]
   
The agreement appeared likely to mean the cancellation of a July 26 referendum Abbas had scheduled, over Hamas's objections, on the prisoners' document. Under the accord, Hamas, which won elections in January, would agree to form a unity administration with Fatah and other factions. [Fatah must kick themselves - a few more payments to hospitals and alms to the Jihadists and none of this would have happened; no sharing of the aid money gravy train - Drat!]
   
The European Union, main donor to the Palestinians, praised the agreement as a good first step while Washington said it wanted to see more details. [...you have got to be kidding.....]

Both said Hamas now has to clearly recognise Israel and renounce violence. [... now now, be a good boy and say sorry... and mean it...]

David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the deal appeared aimed at getting the Europeans to break ranks with the United States to ease the embargo. [...nah, you don't say, really. What insight and wisdom...]

"I don't think it will be successful," he said. [...oh, you wait, you wait. Just let the MSM finish with Israel's military actions in the coming days and Europe will be a good step closer - was that maybe the whole purpose behind Sunday attacks; provoke Kadima/Likud into action despite their dovish stances?!?... "we had no choice"]
   
Israel has said the document is a non-starter and ruled out dealing with Hamas until the group met those terms. "The document unfortunately would appear to be just more double-speak," said Mark Regev, Israeli foreign ministry spokesman. [I know Mark, that's all you can every say about any of this... what a charade]

I mean honestly. And speaking of honesty this video is a must see about the wonders of Pallywood. It is a video exposing many a staged footage that we in the West are fed and how it is filmed and directed by the Palestinians.

As I said yesterday "Israel cannot succeed by empowering terrorists".

UPDATE BREAKING: Well done Israel: Run but you can't hide. Rounding up dozens of Palestinian Cabinet ministers and lawmakers from Hamas and issuing a, hopefully, final warning to Assistant-Thug-In-Chief Assad in Damascus, Syria, is the right response. Hamas is the Government, which makes Sunday's attacks an act of war. Of course the Israeli 18 year old captive from the West Bank, had been executed already on Sunday, with a single shot in the head. And let's use the correct word "murdered". "Execution" is etymologically derived from executing a death penalty issued by a lawful court. It is the sentence, not the prisoner who is
executed. The prisoner dies as a consequence of executing the court order. A group of individuals or a terrorist organization are by definition unable to perform an execution. They can only murder."

And we already know that "Israeli Army Corporal Gilad Shalit won't live to see his twentieth birthday" (h/t Jeremayakovka)

Nearly 40 years of pin-point targeted response to Arab rabid hostilities has lead to this perverse situation where the West pays the Palestinian officials, synonymous with the term 'terrorists', billions of Dollars so that they can keep spitting into Israel's face.

End this charade now and break up the evil. Stop worrying about public opinion in the West - it's a no-win effort anyway. Kill the cancer dead now, once and for all. "Turn the other cheek" is not part of their theology -- but "an eye for an eye" certainly is."

UPDATE II: Unconfirmed. The Palestinians claim to have fired a rocket tipped with chemical warhead at Israel, but the Israeli sources cannot confirm. (h/t Misha @ AIR) Perhaps as Allah opines they are trying to keep the genie in the bottle. He also gives us the "Are you sitting down?  A new Times editorial puts the blame for the brinksmanship squarely on Hamas."

UPDATE III: And in case of any lingering doubts left regarding the true nature of this widely 'hailed accord'...:

According to a Hebrew translation published by Haaretz, the actual wording is as follows: "The Palestinian people … desires the liberation of its lands and the realization of its right to liberty, return, independence and self-definition, including the right to establish an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital on all the territory occupied in 1967" (emphasis added).

In other words, a state in this territory is merely one part of the broader goal of "the liberation of [Palestinian] lands." Or to put it in historical context, this is a reincarnation of the PLO's 1974 "phased plan," under which any "liberated" territory would serve as a base for pursuing Israel's ultimate destruction. [...]

In other words, Hamas does not see the call for a Palestinian state as implicitly recognizing Israel; it if did, it would object to this article, too. Rather, it views such a state as compatible with its goal of Israel's destruction.

BUT THE document also offers additional proof of its nonrecognition of Israel's right to exist: its insistence on a "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, which is a euphemism for eliminating Israel demographically. The 4.3 million refugees and descendents (according to UN figures), combined with Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens, could democratically vote the Jewish state (5.3 million Jews) out of existence. [...]

BUT THE document does not merely preserve the terrorist status quo: For the first time, it enshrines terror as official PA policy. Hitherto, while Hamas and Fatah both practiced terror, Fatah at least paid lip service to the need to end it. The document, however, calls for "establishing a unified resistance force, called the Palestinian Resistance Front, which will lead the uprising against the occupation, and also unifying and coordinating resistance operations and creating a unified political authority for the Front."

Since "resistance" is the Palestinian euphemism for terror attacks, this means that terror, rather than being the work of "opposition groups" (as the PA used to claim), would become official policy.

Indeed, the only mystery about this clause is how Abbas, who publicly adopted the document "as is," can still be lauded by the world - including Israel's government - as having "repudiated terror."

Finally, the document has been praised for accepting international agreements, thereby also allegedly implicitly recognizing Israel. Yet as Natsche and Sa'adi explained in their clarification, "the document's reference to recognizing just international resolutions does not mean recognizing all resolutions, but only those that do not harm the Palestinian people."

And, to remove all doubts, Fatah and Hamas agreed in negotiations last week to amend the text to explicitly recognize only resolutions "that serve the Palestinian people."

Hamas, however, does not believe that any existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements serve the Palestinian people; it denounced them all as betrayals, mainly because they recognize Israel. Thus these agreements are clearly not among those that the document recognizes, and this article cannot be read as implicitly recognizing Israel.

The international community set three conditions for relations with the Hamas government: recognizing Israel, renouncing terror and accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The Prisoners' Letter, however, does none of the above: It does not recognize Israel, even implicitly; it does not recognize previous agreements; and far from renouncing terror, it enshrines it as official policy.

Despite this, the media have swallowed Abbas's propaganda wholesale and are touting the document as sufficient to satisfy international demands. One can only hope that world leaders will scrutinize it with greater care and honesty.

There you have it. Bomb the bastards and get on with life sans 'Palestine'...

Comments

[liquid]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out over the past that hamas isn't or ever was it ever 'for' peace. Even for those just tuning in--it's as plain as the nose on your face-- if you have been paying attention at all! Even when talking from it's forked tongue, hamas has continued it's desire for Israel to not exist. This is it's goal.......not peace.

The day that the world wakes up and realises that when hamas uses the term "peace" it translates as 'ONLY peace of mind' for them that every Jew in the middle east is gone!

My prayers are with Israel as they defend their space on this earth! God be with them in all things!

[Michael van der Galien]

The Palis want a confrontation. Let them have it. Let them really have it.

I agree.

[Ghost Dansing]

The Mark of the beast is hate. Who is the beast? "...sticks in my craw to read a plaintive plea about a "cycle of violence"."

Possibly humanity itself.

Do not confuse the presence of insight with the lack of will or a the absence of a warrior's spirit.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know youself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle" - Sun Tzu

[Kenny Pierce]

George's link, for convenience, is here.

[George Berryman]

Up to the minute updates on the IDF's progress (and oddly enough Israeli basketball players being selected in the NBA draft) can be found at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

[Jeremayakovka]

When a military operation is ongoing, when captives are being held, shuttled, and quite possibly tortured and (one we know of) murdered, when one side has boasted about using chemical weapons (which international laws does that break?), when all this is going down, when Yossi Klein Halevi observed that the writing on the wall in Israel is, "Olmert, the job is bigger than you are," then I must say that it sticks in my craw to read a plaintive plea about a "cycle of violence". And it should stick in the craw of all people of sound principles and judgment.

The Palis want a confrontation. Let them have it. Let them really have it.

[gringoman]

Speaking of the "cycle of violence," this seems to be quite a cycle indeed, perhaps born of semitic encyclicals in lands of the desert, but now cycling well beyond the Middle East, in fact, whether or not the Communism-Nazism authority Hannah Arendt herself took note, is spanning the very globe in a mega-cycle of sanctified violence.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(May 2004) The Islamic Wars. In 2004, there are about 25 wars in the world that involve Islamic countries or groups:

* Separatist wars (descendants of Muslim immigrants who now want independence from the countries that welcomed them as immigrants): Philippines, Aceh (Indonesia), Narathiwat (Thailand), Kosovo (Serbia),
* Ethnic-cleansing wars (Islamic regimes intent at exterminating and expelling non-Muslims from their countries): Algeria (Berbers), Sudan (Dinkas), Sudan (Darfur), Mauritania, Iran (Kurds), Iraq (Kurds), Syria (Kurds)
* Revolutionary wars (Islamic fundamentalists plotting to overthrow moderate Islamic regimes): Algeria, Saudi Arabia (Osama bin Laden), Afghanistan (Taliban), Jordan (Zarqawi), Uzbekistan, Somalia
* Occupation wars (Islamic countries that occupy non-Islamic countries): Syria (occupies Lebanon), Morocco (occupies Western Sahara),
* Border wars (Islamic countries waging wars against neighboring countries): Azerbajan (against Armenia), Turkish Cyprus (against Greek Cyprus)
* Liberation wars (Muslim countries occupied by non-Islamic countries): Turkestan (China), Palestine (Israel), Kashmir (India), Chechnya (Russia),
* Terrorist wars (Muslim terrorists waging wars against non-Muslim countries): USA, Russia, Britain, France, Italy, Spain
* Sectarian wars: Muslim Shiites against Sunnis in Pakistan, Muslims against Hindus in India, Muslims against Christians in Nigeria

Three of these wars are probably over:

* In 2002, the Taliban were largely defeated in Afghanistan.
* In 2003, the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Iraq was ended.
* In 2004, Spain accepted the demands of the terrorists.

Ironically, a large percentage of the Muslims killed in these Islamic wars have been killed by Islamic terrorists (particularly, Al Qaeda), not by their enemies (e.g. Israel killed fewer Palestinians in 2001 than Osama killed on 11 September 2001 in New York).
In 2004, the only conflicts in the world that do not involve Islam are Sri Lanka, Burundi, Nepal, Georgia.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2005 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/arabs.html#arab0504

[Ghost Dansing]

The Israeli-Palestinian thing is getting uglier every day. What we need is a less macabre picture on the blog. How about something pretty, and colorful...bright and uplifting. The one on this article looks like a nasty daemon with entrails all over its face. It is very disturbing. But then, the Israeli-Palestinian thing is very disturbing also.

It would be wonderful if this knot of pain could be turned into insight...into transcendence...

It had all started, Hannah explained, in revolutionary and Napoleonic times, as a reaction to the threatened disintegration of the nation state as a source of collective power for its members.

The shared sense of common occupance of, and responsibility for, a national territory had been gaining headway steadily since the time of Charlemagne. As well, for many centuries the perception of membership in one human race had been encouraged by the spread of universalizing philosophies.

The Enlightenment, with its ideal of empowerment of the individual through the use of reason and the senses -- accompanied by joint participation in the civic society -- perhaps represented the pinnacle of this evolution away from tribalism.

But, with the onset of the terrible insecurity of the early nineteenth century caused by changing national borders and political liaisons, people turned for comfort and support to the family, and to the clan or tribe. They began to revert once more to the older notion of blood ties and of mystical tribal "oneness" as the criterion for separating groups from one another -- and as the source of the only collective power that could now be relied upon to protect them.

Values were changing as well. Differences were sought and celebrated, rather than commonalities. Arendt noted that "The Enlightenment's genuine tolerance and curiosity for everything human was being replaced by a morbid lust for the exotic, abnormal and different as such."

Arendt identified two poisonous roots of the tribalism that culminated in twentieth century totalitarianism: Romanticism and the race-thinking which took the form of pan-Germanic and pan-Slavic movements. She noted that both roots were nourished in France as well as in Germany. In fact, pan-Germanism as a political movement got its start with a group of alienated French noblemen who claimed an inherited superiority to the masses because of direct descendance from the Germanic conquerors of the Gallo-Roman populace in late Roman times. In mid-nineteenth century the Comte de Gobineau, enthralled with Romanticism, welded the two notions together into his historical doctrine of the "spiritual" superiority of the German race. It was a doctrine that borrowed much from Hegel, Nietzsche and Romantic Idealism in general.

What thoughts poison us...enlighten us?

Gobineau believed that he had discovered the scientific laws governing the fall of civilizations. In his opinion, they fell for one reason only: racial degeneration due to the intermixing of blood lines. He was convinced that the original race of "princes" (the Aryans) was in danger of being submerged by inferior non-Aryan races. The greatest threat was posed by Semitic peoples -- heretofore, merely a term describing the ancient Hebrew, Ethiopian, Assyrian and Arabic linguistic groups. Gobineau put a new and ominous twist to the word, claiming the Semites were the Jewish race who had been bestialized early in human history through interbreeding with black Africans: obviously the lowest of all the sub-races in Gobineau's perverted scheme of things!

Arendt saw pan-Germanic Nazism and pan-Slavic Communism as very similar. She recognized that they had emerged from the same seedbed of Romantic Idealism and were based on almost identical pseudo-scientific theories of history. Where Nazism cited race as the defining characteristic of humanity and the driving force of history, she said, Communism substituted class. Both declared world conquest necessary and inevitable; both anticipated the formation of a new kind of human nature. She noted one obvious difference, however. Communism was originally inspired by humanitarian motives and sought international equality, while Nazism aimed at the institutionalization of a system of inherited privilege requiring the enslavement and annihilation of "inferior" races. But Arendt felt that this difference in goals grew increasingly irrelevant the more successful the movements became. She explained that the very nature of totalitarian ideology guarantees that the ends will always be overwhelmed by the dehumanizing means employed.

Past and future mingle dangerously in the Middle East, a region dominated for the larger part of the 20th and into the 21st century by the entrenched Arab-Jewish conflict resulting in the rapid growth of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the hindsight perspective of many decades, it seems that the future of this region has always been nothing but its future past: a repetition of the past, the past continuing into the future unchanging, therefore repressive and explosive.

Analyses of the "war" in the Middle East have shown little interest in this presence of the past, even though fundamentalist Islam shares the Jewish preoccupation with religio-cultural memory and the resulting political difficulties. They were predicted more than half a century ago by Hannah Arendt, whose political philosophy would focus on the importance of new political beginnings after the catastrophe of W.W.II, and Judah L. Magnes, whose 1925 inaugural lecture as first Chancellor of Hebrew University had called for Arab-Jewish reconciliation.

Six decades ago, Arendt and Magnes saw the conflicted, problematic future—now our present—of a Jewish state in Palestine more clearly than we seem to be able to do after more than half a century of wars and violence in the Middle East. Their main concerns then were certain important pre-modern dimensions of political Zionism: its tendencies toward unquestioned group solidarity and separatism; its prescriptive theocratic, utopianist aspects (especially in combination with technocratic aspirations and skills); its denial of historicity in embracing an a priori significant, complete memory story (myth) of Jewish suffering at the center of an enduringly distinct, unique Jewish identity; its denial of temporality in embracing the past as shaping the present and the future; its preference of religious certainty over political negotiations; its unquestioned belief in the redemptive power of cultural memory.

In political and cultural modernity, other groups, other nations, regardless of their painful past experiences, have had to be content with the muddled stories of temporal, historical processes that were changing them. They have had to deal, that is, with the incomplete, often contradictory and obscure memory stories of the mingling and mixing of peoples, their often difficult interdependencies as they were asked to allow themselves to be transformed in time. Arendt saw these transformations as central to the political modernity of the U.S., in her view a great achievement. In America, she said repeatedly, one can be a Jew and an American, by which she meant that as an American one will be able to change.

No answers here...just questions...the cycle of violence in the mideast has become cliche...however, it is a well-earned cliche and probably plumbs more depth of meaning than most.

[Jeremayakovka]

More rhetorical rope by which the Palis wind their own nooses (but by which our MSM refuses to open the trap door under them): Read fanatic Azzam Al-Tamimi and watch fanatic Mahmoud al-Zahar. It's victim-victim-victim and murder-murder-murder mentality. These people don't deserve a seat at any table.

[Tony Harrison]

About 2 weeks ago, Der Spiegel interviewed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Throughout the tough interview, Haniya remained on message, and he was demanding: (1) the return to the '67 borders, (2) a divided Jerusalem, and (3) the right of millions of Palestinians to return. For the Jews, Haniya offered a 50-year cease fire, but did not offer to recognize Israel's right to exist.