Header Leaderboard

April 15, 2008: What Does It Take?

April 15, 2008

Abbas Zaki is no upstart within Palestinian politics . Long an influential member of Fatah, he sits on its powerful Central Committee. Additionally, he is the PLO’s representative to Lebanon.

This, according to MEMRI is what Zaki said recently in the course of an interview on Lebanese TV:

"We believe wholeheartedly that the Right of Return is guaranteed by our will, by our weapons, and by our faith.

"The use of weapons alone will not bring results , and the use of politics without weapons will not bring results. We act on the basis of our extensive experience. We analyze our situation carefully. We know what climate leads to victory and what climate leads to suicide. We talk politics, but our principles are clear…We harvest U.N. resolutions, and we shame the world so that it doesn’t gang up on us, because the world is led by people who have given their brains a vacation – the American administration and the neocons.

"The P.L.O. is the sole legitimate representative [of the Palestinian people], and it has not changed its platform even one iota. In light of the weakness of the Arab nation and the lack of values, and in light of the American control over the world, the P.L.O. proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."



We who are vehemently opposed to current Israeli and American policy with regard to our negotiating a "two state solution" — which would require us to surrender part of Jerusalem and all or most of Judea and Samaria — feel, more often than not, that our words of warning fall on deaf ears. It makes little or no impact on those who persist in conceptualizing the PA as "moderate" when we speak of Jerusalem as the heart of our existence and our very raison d’être, which we are at risk of surrendering.

But now, here it is from the enemy. And I wonder if anyone will even bother to sit up and pay attention.

"When…we take, at least, Jerusalem , the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology…and drive them out of all of Palestine."

It’s time, way past time, for us to sit up and say , "Look you bums, this is ours and you are entitled to none of it.

It’s time for us to remember that we HAVE an ideology and to adhere to it instead of the Palestinian narrative.


Allow me, please, to clarify what I see as the major, and very significant, implications of the Zaki interview:

[] For us to surrender any part of Jerusalem , which is historically ours and which is, according to our own basic law, the undivided capital of Israel, would be to surrender the sense of who we are and what our entitlement is. It would be to cut out our own heart.

[] The Palestinians fully intend to continue to push for the (non-existent) "right of return," which would undermine us from within.

[] The Palestinians have never abandoned their "Phased Program," which was formulated after they realized the Arabs couldn’t destroy Israel in a war. What it does is set out a policy of achieving a Palestinian state in all the land by stages instead, and using politics as a method of reaching the final goal.

This means there is no reason whatsoever to trust that an agreement struck with the PA would represent a final cessation of hostilities rather than a way station towards further hostilities.

And yet…and yet…there are those who insist on trusting it. "We must take chances for peace" is their watchword. And it is unbearable.


More of what we’re dealing w ith from inside:

Israeli MK Ahmed Tibi, Chair of the United Arab List , in attendance at the Doha Forum on Democracy in Qatar, registered as "Palestinian." The response within the Knesset, both to the left and the right, has been outrage, with the suggestion made that he might consider moving to Ramallah — that his choice of identity was his to make, but that he could not have it both ways.


There is so much to address that I’ve been mum on the subject of Obama, even as I shudder at the prospect of his becoming president. It would be an understatement to say that his support for Israel is shaky, no matter the superficial impression he lends and those whom he is able to fool. (There are always those who, for whatever reasons, are ready to be fooled.) The latest "name" advisor to join his camp is Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel.

I recommend an article by Ed Lasky in The American Thinker, on the positions of Indyk vis-a-vis Israel, which are enough to make your hair stand on end if you love Israel. Just as the acorn falls close to the tree, so is the candidate likely of similar mind. Read it and be forewarned.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *