Do you read
Arab news? You should.
There are
peace talks going on. If you read Israel’s press to see how Jews see these
talks, you might want to know how Muslims see these talks.
The
headlines—and comments—below come from January 7 -9, 2014.
Hamas
News
-Dozens of
settlers, accompanied by rabbi, storm al-Aqsa Mosque
-IOF forces
Jerusalemite to raze his own home
- “Stones of Baked Clay” ... Hope For
Liberation & Victory
- In the anniversary of Nakba day: We
will [be] back to our land
- The Zionist project must end
-Barghouthi:
Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli occupation
-Futility of current talks between Israel and
PA
Palestinian Authority (PA)/Fatah news
-Fatah
proposes unity government plan to Hamas
-Abbas
discusses peace process with Jordanian king
-Analysis:
Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace talks
- Palestinian NGO decries Israeli
'excessive force'
-Analysis:
On the 'Jewish State of Israel'
--
--
For the
first time in months, both the Hamas and Fatah news sites are running headlines
about the current round of Arab-Israel peace talks. But the news here is not
the same news you see on Israeli sites. There is a significant difference
between Arab and Jewish views of this ‘peace’.
In Israel,
an informal look at news sites suggests that perhaps 60 per cent (or, 60+ per
cent) of headlines present pro-peace features, news and analysis. Most of the pro-peace
stories appear to be written by Jews.
Very few
articles against ‘peace’ appear in the Israeli press. The overwhelming
impression is, as one Leftist recently said, ‘most Israelis want peace.’
But then,
the Israeli press is far from objective. Too often, when we see an overwhelming
number of stories favouring a single issue, we learn after the fact that editors
were working overtime to sell a slanted version of the news.
The
Hamas-Fatah sites tell a different tale. Arabs don’t promote a peace with
Israel the way Israel’s press promotes a peace with the Arab. If a pro-peace
essay does appear on these Arab sites, it’s probably been written by a
Westerner (“Analysis: Why Palestinian leadership is right to engage in peace
talks”). Then, virtually all essays about the peace talks focus on—or are based
upon--only two issues: (1) Palestinian national rights cannot be compromised;
and (2) peace with the Occupier (Israel) will not happen unless all Palestinian
demands are met.
As you read
through the current batch of Israeli and Arab peace-talk essays, you’re going
to have to be careful. If you don’t understand what words mean, you are not going
to understand what’s happening.
Here is the most
important word you must understand: ’Palestine’.
If current stories
in the Israeli press are any indicator, ‘Palestine’ is a trick word. It doesn’t mean what Israelis—particularly Leftist
Israelis--think it means.
When the
United States, the European Union (EU) and virtually all Israeli Leftists speak
of a new Arab state to be called ‘Palestine’, they refer specifically to land
that is to be surrendered by Israel. Today, that land is called Judea- Samaria.
Perhaps land from the Jordan River Valley will be included. Gaza, already under
Arab control, is included.
To the US,
the EU and Israel Leftists, this is the geography upon which ‘Palestine’ will
sit. It will share a border with Israel.
But for the
Arab, Palestine does not share a border with Israel. Palestine is Israel.
The Arab use
of the word, Palestine, does not conform to the definition used by the US, EU
and Israel’s Leftists. The Arab definition that you see in Hamas/Fatah news stories
refers to a different ‘Palestine’. It’s a definition which, though different, might
actually be more accurate than the one used by Israel and the West.
The Arab use
of the word, ‘Palestine’, does not refer to Judea-Samaria, the Jordan River
valley or Gaza. It refers to UN
Resolution 181. This is the 1947 UN Resolution that outlined how the “Future
government of Palestine” would be divided.
The ‘Palestine’
of that 1947 UN Resolution was, essentially, the land-mass of modern 21st
Century Israel. The intent of 181 was to divide that Palestine between Jew and
Arab.
That Palestine
was to become two states—a Jewish state and an Arab state.
But the Arabs
didn’t want to share. They attacked. They wanted only one state for that entire
Palestine. They intended to remove the Jewish portion of that Palestine.
Nevertheless,
that portion of Palestine still remains in Jewish hands. Nevertheless, the
Arabs still want it for themselves.
Arab wars against
Israel have always aimed to liberate that portion of 1947 Palestine from the Jew.
To the Arab, the Jew has ‘occupied’ what Arabs self-define as ‘Arab land’. It’s
been that way since 1947. For the Arab, what is today’s Israel is nothing more
than occupied Arab land—and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is the IOF, the
Israel Occupation Force (“IOF forces Jerusalemite to raze his own home”).
Westerners,
including Israeli Leftists, do not understand this distinction. They should.
When Arabs
want to liberate Palestine, they are not talking about Judea-Samaria. They’re
talking about that 1947 Palestine. That means that they want all of Israel—Haifa,
Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Acco, etc.
Arabs do not
see these peace talks as a prelude to peace. If they sign a Kerry plan
(whatever the details), they’ll only get Judea-Samaria and perhaps a portion of
the Jordan River valley. Given their goal of getting all of Israel, such a deal
would be just another Western attempt to create a NEW Nakba for the Arab—a new national
Arab catastrophe (“Barghouthi: Kerry's initiative seeks to prolong Israeli
occupation).
In other
words, to the Arab, a peace based on receiving just Judea-Samaria will be a
disaster.
To the Arab,
the 1947 ‘Palestine’ must be Jew-free. That is the only end-game. Any Arab who
signs an agreement for a different end-game is a ‘capitulationist’ (“Futility
of current talks between Israel and PA”).
This is not outrageous extremism. It is not
fantasy. It’s the middle-of-the-road position
for the Arab. It’s what you’ll read every day in Hama/Fatah news.
No comments:
Post a Comment